![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 160 to 184 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by rskontos on March 1, 2009, at 12:52:28
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
>I welcome healthy discussion here. I agree, I-statements can go a long ways. It's hard to have a good discussion if people feel targeted. Thank you for working to express yourself in a civil way. A balance between being open and holding back helps keep discussions productive. It may be tempting to suspend rules, but that can have its own complications.
You're welcome. But, of course there is a but, I feel that this discussion did not yield a great deal to us, perhaps to you it did. In looking at the archives, it is clear this discussion regarding blocks/math/civility rules has been ongoing for years. So in the best interest of a subject coming up over and over again, how about addressing it. In doing so, realize that somethings you perceive to be offensive to us, may not actual be to us. Your perception of offensive and ours may differ a great deal. We are not you and you are not us.
Dr. Bob, no you don't trigger me when you are gone, what triggers me is posters I value are suddenly gone in a discuss that you deem inappropriate.
You know the old saying, in trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. Well, in trying to keep civility rules across the board it is bound to happen that no one is really served. That is now how I feel the civility rules have evolved. They should be protection not an absolute. You said for us to police ourselves and yet you still sweep in and block people often to the detriment of the actual discussion.
>Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other.>
Then help us address this issue once and for all. Some of us will continue to use Babble because it means so much, that is outside of you Dr. Bob.
I think we all do a good job of supporting each other. Perhaps in this case, to just watch and see if someone reported that this poster had indeed made them feel bad or insulted might be one suggestion. You made the rule for us to support and police ourselves yet I don't see how we are allowed to do just that.
So in MHO,
Another new beginning was derailed.
rsk
Posted by BayLeaf on March 1, 2009, at 14:02:54
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
>I don't have much time right now, but I'm listening. I'm also wondering if I trigger some of you by being absent. Twinleaf mentioned emotionally unfair and abusive families of origin at the beginning of this thread.
>Bob
>Hmm, and maybe in addition to hurt and anger, my unavailability also triggers longing?
>Bob
My "Bob Pet Peeve List" is topped by pointing out that all the anger at him is really transference. None of it as actually justified by his behavior. It's just a marvelous way to deflect responsibility. It's an "anti-I-statement".Of course, there is some transference going on here - I won't point it out, cuz that would be uncivil, and too obvious for folks who have been around a long time....but seriously Bob. Most of the anger directed at you, imo, is not augmented by any form of daddy-ness at Babble. It is actually balanced by your actions.
Bay
Posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:05:15
In reply to Re: unavailability, Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on March 1, 2009, at 12:52:28
This is the first time in a while that the blocking formula was used.
Posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 14:21:31
In reply to Re: unavailability » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 11:20:23
> Bob said "This discussion has already yielded a couple new ways of doing things. Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other."
>
> I would like a clarification on the above statement.
>
> I need to know what the "new things" are.
I've been thinking, Bob, and I wonder if you might feel inadequate when it comes to providing more than a safe long distance relationship with us? (I've watched for years and really can't recall an effort upon your part to reach out to us.)I think that it would be a terrific relief to some of the posters if our "discussion" was a two- way street. I don't believe that it is now.
I think that there is fair amount of self-disclosure from the posters when it comes to trying to talk to you about the administration of Babble.
It takes two to tango.
Posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:24:49
In reply to Re: unavailability » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on March 1, 2009, at 14:02:54
The manner in which the blocks are built up via the formula is transparent, as is the intention.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
In reply to Blocking formula, posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:05:15
> This is the first time in a while that the blocking formula was used.
Hmmm, I think Dr. Bob almost always uses it. Maybe even "always."
I use it all the time when I have to block someone. In a way.
I use it, then if to me, taking into consideration all the factors, and all the gray areas I might be struggling with (e.g., was the person 'provoked?" What IS 'provoked?" How many PBCs, say in a day or two, a week, etc., warrant a block? Two? Three? One? - say if the person is particularly uncivil? [Whatever that means...]) the number of weeks appears reasonable, I follow it.
Other times, I will *reduce* the length, despite what it says, as my gut just can't see/justify the number it shows me. (I would NEVER increase the length - ever.) I choose some shorter length and notify Dr. Bob that I was agonizing over the "right" number of weeks, to have him take a look. To me, the formula is hardly the perfect solution. It IS better than the old method of doubling, than doubling again. I didn't care for that as it led to lengthy blocks so very quickly in some cases. I have come to believe there is no perfect solution. As long as I know I am factoring in compassion for posters, I can be at relative peace with myself as a deputy, and I just make the best choice I can in each case. Maybe this approach fuels a perception of inconsistency? I don't know. I rarely know what is meant by that unless it's spelled out or examples are given. I think....unless we find a software program (obviously a non-human technological tool) that scans the boards and applies requests to be civil and blocks itself, with zero human input, there will be *some* form of inconsistency people can point to in what deputies do, over time. We discuss and discuss and worry and try so hard to balance being consistent with being fair with being responsive to posters different situations.....and well, it's tough.
I don't think that is Dr. Bob's way of looking at the formula. I think I've seen that he likes to use it - period. I could be mistaken, but I think that's because in developing this tool, he has already factored in the things needed to be factored in - things that in his view ought to increase or decrease the length - by having all the various boxes to check, or not. Perhaps he's able to be at peace with that, and is more rational about it, and I am still more emotional?
Dr. Bob doesn't require us to use it exclusively at this time. We can choose to use it or not. I think he allows this out of respect, and the desire to not want to "force" deputies to take an action they don't feel is right in a given situation. My belief is he just wants us to be reasonable and we may always defer to him if we are unsure or simply don't want to make the decision.
I hate, hate, hate blocking people. It takes me - sometimes - not minutes but hours (maybe even days) to decide what to do in a case where prior practice, number of recent PBCs, etc., really point me to no choice but a block. (And I'm not even talking about the times where the choice is one more PBC OR a block - those are particularly distressing to me as I tend to see both sides and become a little 'stuck') I almost always consult any other deputy available. This is extrememly helpful - in the sense of emtional support and that 2 or 3 heads are better than one. We all can get tunnel vision, and trapped in a rut and miss the forest for the trees, etc. Sometimes they are also not sure, but usually offer their unique view and suggestion. Then I decide. If my posting name is going on something, I have to be able to tolerate my own decision within the framework of integrity and fairness as I see it. It's no fun, and almost never simple, except maybe in the case of posting while blocked. Not that I have no emotional reaction to those posters - I do. But there, as long as I am acting as a deputy, and have agreed to do deputy duties like blocking sometimes, the rule is pretty cut and dried, without that, "but what about....[insert variables]"
My points here are to say, yes, the formula does get used - at least by me and Deputy Racer. I think Dinah does not use it. And secondly, just to try and provide some insight into me as a deputy and a person, dealing with consequences of uncivil posts and one aspect of my "job." It's the least favorite part - in fact, it's not a favorite at all. I believe in blocking as I can't figure out any other method that I can see being better for overall harmony and support for the entire Babble community. I am a big believer in actions having consequences, and in following through - IRL and here. But I know being blocked absolutely s**** for (most) posters, and I do NOT look forward to the times I have to use do it.
I don't know if this helps at all. Hope so.
Posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:11:21
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
Posted by 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 16:11:50
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
>It's no fun, and almost never simple, except maybe in the case of posting while blocked
Well this could sound wrong. I, of course, only meant that it is simpler in the cases of PWB, NOT that those are fun. Blocking is not fun.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on March 1, 2009, at 16:38:11
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
> My points here are to say, yes, the formula does get used - at least by me and Deputy Racer. I think Dinah does not use it.
I use it for longer blocks, although I don't post the formula like Dr. Bob does. But sometimes it leads to longer blocks than just doubling does, so I'd rather err on the side of shorter blocks and ask Dr. Bob to review it. Also, perhaps because I've been a deputy back when we were only a very temporary fillin for Dr. Bob, I tend to defer length setting to him if I know he's around.
I keep Dr. Bob up to date on all my deputy actions, and especially so on blocks. We all do.
Actually, when it comes to blocks, I know we're all reluctant and usually try to get a consensus if at all possible. So the formula is generally considered one way or another and results are more consistent than it would be if we acted alone.
That's one thing I like about the team deputy system.
I think the deputies also tend to argue in favor of things that soften blocks. We may not have originated the ideas of civility buddies, blocked posters being allowed to chat, blocked posters being able to receive babblemail, etc. And I in no way want to claim credit for those ideas. But I know we argued in favor of them.
I won't take credit for this either and I can't recall who suggested it, but I'd like to have a formalized system in place, where posters who are blocked for longer than a week can apply to Dr. Bob to reduce their block length in return for a probationary period, or something along those lines.
Posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:48:10
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Deputy Dinah on March 1, 2009, at 16:38:11
"I won't take credit for this either and I can't recall who suggested it, but I'd like to have a formalized system in place, where posters who are blocked for longer than a week can apply to Dr. Bob to reduce their block length in return for a probationary period, or something along those lines."
Anything to soften stuff....
I dunno, change is slow and weird.
Interpersonal communication is tough at best.
I want everyboddy to be happy.
Stupid eh?
Wished I could stay in my 'happy world' state...
sigh.
Best of luck towards many, or even some happy moments for alla you guys.Someboddy wrote of when they SI's in session (scratched hard, drew blood) and their T didn't get mad, even thopugh they broke the rule of not hurting themsleves in the T room. The T was gnetle and helped soothe her owie.
That makes me feel weird.
Everything makes me feel weird.
Its a weird world.
Sincerely happy to be nuts.
M
Posted by 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 23:27:23
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:48:10
Posted by 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 23:28:16
In reply to (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((10der)))))))))))))))) (nm) » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:11:21
Posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 23:57:56
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:48:10
I think mayhap the point I was making is that proly lots people are used to punish.
So in the example the person seriously broke one of her T's rules.
You'd think for such a serious infraction T woulda dumped her.
But she didn't.
She helped soothe the hurt.
Makes my chest hurt, that she would do this.
That she didn't get mad, she didn't punish.
Lotta people would be thrown by that.
Cuz they never do that for themselves, they not have others do that for them, or they not allow it.So I guess we was thinking along the lines of blocks or something but I dunno exactly what the connection is.
I been kinda mixed up.
Maybe best to shut up until this passes.
Maybe I go find my brain, I reckon it gotta be around here SOMEwhere.
Kinda hard to find cuz it the size of a pea!
Take care,
M
Posted by 10derHeart on March 2, 2009, at 0:06:22
In reply to oops sorry, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 23:57:56
...IF the last part of your message HAS to be true (according to you) then...............................................
you are my VERY favorite pea-brain!! lol.
Reminds me of something one ex-hubby used to say about a million years ago ( not to me, and not in a terribly mean way - just sorta exasperated) - he'd mutter under his breath about someone not seeming all that competent or just unable to get things right.....
"brains of an ant"
Not nice and uncivil to boot, but it could be kinda funny it a weird way....he never let the person actually *hear* him - but I did...
Pea-brains and ant-brains unite!!!!
Posted by Sigismund on March 2, 2009, at 1:14:48
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
I'm touched that you should reply at such length.
Thank you.
Bob hasn't been around a lot
But he found time for zazenducke.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 2, 2009, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Sigismund on March 2, 2009, at 1:14:48
> I'm touched that you should reply at such length.
Thanks. It's difficult for me to know what to say here sometimes, so I appreciate any and all support. IRL, though most people request I not do so, not at such length anyway. ;-)
("you talk too much!") Heard it all my life back as far as age 5-6.
> Bob hasn't been around a lot
This is true.
> But he found time for zazenducke.
Well, I suppose, yet I think that was perhaps a pure coincidence that he was the one to take any admin action. I think we had notified him and asked him to look at various boards/threads, when zzd just happened by....
I understand what you are saying, though.
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2009, at 4:10:04
In reply to oops sorry, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 23:57:56
> > This discussion has already yielded a couple new ways of doing things.
>
> I need to know what the "new things" are.
>
> fayeroeI meant:
> It may help if complaints about [deputies] are emailed to me directly and not posted or submitted using the notification system. And if blocks are longer for incivility toward them. So let's make those changes
--
> this discussion regarding blocks/math/civility rules has been ongoing for years. So in the best interest of a subject coming up over and over again, how about addressing it.
>
> help us address this issue once and for all.
>
> Dr. Bob, no you don't trigger me when you are gone, what triggers me is posters I value are suddenly gone in a discuss that you deem inappropriate.I don't think it can be addressed once and for all, I think it needs to keep evolving.
And I didn't mean to imply that I thought my being gone triggered everyone. Different people have different issues. And certainly posters being blocked can be a huge trigger.
> Another new beginning was derailed.
>
> rskMaybe derailed, but maybe continuing on another track...
--
> My "Bob Pet Peeve List" is topped by pointing out that all the anger at him is really transference. None of it as actually justified by his behavior.
>
> BayI didn't mean to imply that it's all transference. Certainly some of it is justified by my behavior.
--
> I think that it would be a terrific relief to some of the posters if our "discussion" was a two- way street. I don't believe that it is now.
>
> I think that there is fair amount of self-disclosure from the posters when it comes to trying to talk to you about the administration of Babble.
>
> It takes two to tango.
>
> fayeroeIt isn't a two-way street. I sometimes long to tango with you, and you may sometimes long to tango with me, but my dance with you is different than your dance with each other.
--
> I think mayhap the point I was making is that proly lots people are used to punish.
> So in the example the person seriously broke one of her T's rules.
> You'd think for such a serious infraction T woulda dumped her.
> But she didn't.
> She helped soothe the hurt.
> Makes my chest hurt, that she would do this.
>
> So I guess we was thinking along the lines of blocks or something but I dunno exactly what the connection is.
>
> MMaybe some posters stay because they hope and desire not to be dumped (blocked) for infractions. Hopes and desires like that may be likely to be frustrated. Suspending rules may be tempting, but can have its own complications.
Bob
Posted by rskontos on March 4, 2009, at 14:32:01
In reply to Re: hopes and desires, posted by Dr. Bob on March 3, 2009, at 4:10:04
..I don't think it can be addressed once and for all, I think it needs to keep evolving...
Dr. Bob,
Perhaps you think so, but to me it is obvious that this is a painful thing to posters and evolution in this sense (ongoing discussion) seems to be even more painful. No resolution, no peace. JMHO
rsk
Posted by fayeroe on March 4, 2009, at 14:45:03
In reply to Re: hopes and desires » Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on March 4, 2009, at 14:32:01
> ..I don't think it can be addressed once and for all, I think it needs to keep evolving...
>
> Dr. Bob,
>
> Perhaps you think so, but to me it is obvious that this is a painful thing to posters and evolution in this sense (ongoing discussion) seems to be even more painful. No resolution, no peace. JMHO
>
> rskExcellent point. Cutting off the discussion before issues are taken care of has happened before.
I hate that. Babble won't grow and evolve without the process of healing that comes when the circle is completed. Sad.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 0:01:34
In reply to Re: hopes and desires » Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on March 4, 2009, at 14:32:01
> to me it is obvious that this is a painful thing to posters and evolution in this sense (ongoing discussion) seems to be even more painful. No resolution, no peace.
Ongoing evolution and growth does mean there may not be permanent resolution and peace. Still, that's the option I'd prefer.
Bob
Posted by Sigismund on March 5, 2009, at 1:24:42
In reply to Re: resolution and peace, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 0:01:34
>Ongoing evolution and growth
with (or without) whom?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 8:24:29
In reply to Re: resolution and peace » Dr. Bob, posted by Sigismund on March 5, 2009, at 1:24:42
> > Ongoing evolution and growth
>
> with (or without) whom?With those who want to see where this journey takes us?
Bob
Posted by muffled on March 5, 2009, at 13:26:36
In reply to Re: resolution and peace, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 8:24:29
> > > Ongoing evolution and growth
> >
> > with (or without) whom?
>
> With those who want to see where this journey takes us?
>
> Bob*Fair enuf.
I just wish there was some way we could make this clear somehow....so people could be safer. But I guess there is no safe place in this life.
For me, I have so much confusion in my head at times, that I need a place where there is not such evolution and growth. Which is perhaps less stimulating, but at this time is all I can handle.
I appeciate that Bob has expressed some emotion and more clearly some of his thots.
Thanks.
Take care.
M
Posted by fayeroe on March 5, 2009, at 14:08:13
In reply to Re: resolution and peace, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 8:24:29
> > > Ongoing evolution and growth
> >
> > with (or without) whom?
>
> With those who want to see where this journey takes us?
>
> BobI wonder how it would feel to have a safe place where I am not waiting for the other shoe to drop?
Posted by Toph on March 6, 2009, at 10:38:02
In reply to Re: resolution and peace, posted by Dr. Bob on March 5, 2009, at 0:01:34
>
> Ongoing evolution and growth does mean there may not be permanent resolution and peace. Still, that's the option I'd prefer.
>
> BobSystems theorists suggest that evolution is less of a goal or choice than a natural by-product of conflict and instability.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Evolution_&_Growth
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.