![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 117. Go back in thread:
Posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 11:35:38
In reply to Sigh, Bob, your back to your one liners AND » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on June 29, 2006, at 1:48:20
okay, I'm going to nitpick> Happyflower said that deleting uncivil posts would tend to discourage people from posting later uncivil things. Now I don't happen to agree with that (I don't necessarily disagree, though)-- it could cut the other way, just as easily.
So, it's not that deletion per se prevents the past incivility, but future incivility (in her argument)-- so you can't really answer her argument by saying that deleting doesn't prevent the post from having been posted.
The question was whether it would prevent others from posting later.
If you see what I mean...
Anyway. My other thought is that on the other MBs I've frequented (in the past--not psychology-related), I was able to delete, or at least substantively revise posts after having posted them.
One thing I really like about Pbabble is that you can really see how your post reads before committing to posting it (which you couldn't on the other sites, you could only see this small box). So you get a much clearer sense of what you're saying (which is interesting in itself) and can make better decisions about wanting to go through with it (it's a commitment after preliminary submission).
On the other hand, sometimes I was intemperate--or more intemperate than I wanted to be-- so I would either restate or delete occasionally, a few minutes, or even an hour after posting. (of course, you have to be careful that no one has replied--or, if someone has, that you explain that they're responding to something you'd rather not leave up--which of course is your choice, but otherwise they look rather odd.) Then I didn't feel like a bad person for having stated things in a cutting or huffy way, or having somewhat euphemistically (but nonetheless) derogated someone. Which I have a tendency to do.
I think it's interesting that Bob has set it up this way. I like the permanency, in a way, because it creates an amazing historical record of truth, not made nicer or glossed over. I especially like the idea that this accepts and includes "bad" impulses and expressions--as if saying that we can all get carried away, and say mean things, and yet we'ere basically accepted as part of the community--and we can accept this about one another, without having to deny or erase it--so this part of all of us is acknowledged,, even though it's important to try not to act on the impulse.
On the other hand, I have the feeling I'm going to eventually get blocked. Because I'll lose my temper about something someday, I'm sure. And I might very well have regretted what I said, perhaps even as soon as thirty seconds after I said it. That prospect I don't like.
Jost
Posted by Deneb on June 29, 2006, at 22:16:28
In reply to Re: Sigh, Bob, your back to your one liners AND, posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 11:35:38
> I think it's interesting that Bob has set it up this way. I like the permanency, in a way, because it creates an amazing historical record of truth, not made nicer or glossed over. I especially like the idea that this accepts and includes "bad" impulses and expressions--as if saying that we can all get carried away, and say mean things, and yet we'ere basically accepted as part of the community--and we can accept this about one another, without having to deny or erase it--so this part of all of us is acknowledged,, even though it's important to try not to act on the impulse.
I agree! I like the permanency. I like how people can see the good and bad in us. I like how things are out in the open.
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2006, at 5:38:53
In reply to Re: Sigh, Bob, your back to your one liners AND, posted by Jost on June 29, 2006, at 11:35:38
> The question was whether it would prevent others from posting later.
>
> If you see what I mean...Ah, now I see. That's true, if something's deleted, you don't have to worry about it provoking people, but OTOH not deleting it
> > offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity "behind the scenes," and allowing others to contribute to the process.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html#Best> Anyway. My other thought is that on the other MBs I've frequented (in the past--not psychology-related), I was able to delete, or at least substantively revise posts after having posted them.
That's come up here before and is on my to-do list, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/224641.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050823/msgs/546521.html> One thing I really like about Pbabble is that you can really see how your post reads before committing to posting it ... So you get a much clearer sense of what you're saying ... and can make better decisions about wanting to go through with it
Thanks, that's the idea.
> On the other hand, sometimes I was intemperate--or more intemperate than I wanted to be-- so I would either restate or delete occasionally, a few minutes, or even an hour after posting. (of course, you have to be careful that no one has replied--or, if someone has, that you explain that they're responding to something you'd rather not leave up--which of course is your choice, but otherwise they look rather odd.) Then I didn't feel like a bad person for having stated things in a cutting or huffy way, or having somewhat euphemistically (but nonetheless) derogated someone.
I understand. But people can go back and apologize even if they can't (yet) restate or delete...
> I think it's interesting that Bob has set it up this way. I like the permanency, in a way, because it creates an amazing historical record of truth, not made nicer or glossed over. I especially like the idea that this accepts and includes "bad" impulses and expressions--as if saying that we can all get carried away, and say mean things, and yet we'ere basically accepted as part of the community--and we can accept this about one another, without having to deny or erase it--so this part of all of us is acknowledged,, even though it's important to try not to act on the impulse.
Again, thanks, that's the idea.
> On the other hand, I have the feeling I'm going to eventually get blocked. Because I'll lose my temper about something someday, I'm sure. And I might very well have regretted what I said, perhaps even as soon as thirty seconds after I said it. That prospect I don't like.
Again, I understand. You might or might not eventually get blocked. Remember that it doesn't hurt to apologize. And that even if you do lose your temper, you're still basically accepted as part of the community. :-)
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 30, 2006, at 8:33:41
In reply to Re: an amazing historical record of truth, posted by Dr. Bob on June 30, 2006, at 5:38:53
>And that even if you do lose your temper, you're still basically accepted as part of the community. :-)
Which is a good thing given my crankiness last night...
gg
Posted by Dinah on December 15, 2007, at 2:00:47
In reply to Re: Just 3 answers, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2007, at 16:03:27
> > 3. Is there a way to edit a post after i have sumbitted it?
>
> Not yet, but that's on my to-do list.
>
> BobI strenuously object.
Posted by 10derHeart on December 15, 2007, at 2:00:48
In reply to Re: Just 3 answers, posted by Dinah on December 8, 2007, at 16:06:13
I have serious doubts as well. I can't seem to wrap my head around any way where that would not be crazy-making for posters, deputies, etc.
The fact that doesn't happen here has long been one of my favorite things about Babble.
Posted by amigan on December 15, 2007, at 2:00:49
In reply to editing posts after submission, posted by 10derHeart on December 9, 2007, at 1:18:30
> I have serious doubts as well. I can't seem to wrap my head around any way where that would not be crazy-making for posters, deputies, etc.
>
> The fact that doesn't happen here has long been one of my favorite things about Babble.Yes, you are right on this. It could cause many problems in the normal flow of this board.
I was thinking about the possibility to edit your post, while nobody else has replied to it yet or after a limited amount of time passed after you did the post. How about this?
Posted by MidnightBlue on December 15, 2007, at 2:00:50
In reply to Re: Just 3 answers, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2007, at 16:03:27
My two cents: it would be nice to have a narrow window, say maybe an hour? where you can edit a post. Anything longer would get confusing.
MB
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by amigan on December 15, 2007, at 2:00:49
> > I have serious doubts as well. I can't seem to wrap my head around any way where that would not be crazy-making for posters, deputies, etc.
> >
> > The fact that doesn't happen here has long been one of my favorite things about Babble.
>
> Yes, you are right on this. It could cause many problems in the normal flow of this board.
> I was thinking about the possibility to edit your post, while nobody else has replied to it yet or after a limited amount of time passed after you did the post. How about this?There were more requests for an edit function recently, so I've been thinking about this again.
Adding an edit function would be kind of a big project, but it occurred to me that another way to do this might be just to allow a post to be superseded by a revision. The revision would be a new post, starting with the old post as the "first draft", and would be added to the thread like any other new post. The original message would be replaced by a link to the revision (and not simply deleted).
As suggested before, it would only be an option for the most recent post in the thread. As with the latest babblemail setting, for the server to be able to know whether to offer the option, cookies would be required.
This would be a way to rephrase and to avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. It would also give posters more control over what they post. More control can mean more mischief, but I think the pros may outweigh the cons. What do you all think?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 22, 2009, at 17:11:47
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
I dislike the idea. For the same reasons as before. How does it lessen bad feelings if only some people understand why they exist? It seems to me it would only lead to more bad feelings.
If you're going to rethink saying something unkind, it should be *before* a post is confirmed, not after people have had a chance to see it.
It's another way to support bullying on Babble.
Posted by Dinah on November 22, 2009, at 17:27:29
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
If the revision is added to the thread without deleting the original, then how is it different from now?
And what earthly sense does it make to make it an option, unless it's an option to see the original rather than the revision. An option by poster to be able to revise? If someone doesn't wish to revise, they won't.
Are you trying to divert us from the last by offering a new outrage?
Posted by 10derHeart on November 22, 2009, at 18:14:13
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 22, 2009, at 17:27:29
I was asking myself exactly the same question.
Unfortunately. :-(
Posted by Nadezda on November 22, 2009, at 21:06:54
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2009, at 16:52:56
I'm not clear on what would result from this new option.
Would there be the full original post, with a link to the revised post, which would then amplify it and show that the poster had regrets or second thoughts?
Or would it, as the initial formulation seems to suggest, completely replace the original text with simply a link to a new text. This would show that there had been an original post, but not show what was in it. And if this is the case, where would this undeleted post reside? I don't understand where the original text would go if it's completely replace.
So if the second option is what you're suggesting, I don't quite follow it.
Nadezda
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 22, 2009, at 21:06:54
> How does it lessen bad feelings if only some people understand why they exist? It seems to me it would only lead to more bad feelings.
>
> It's another way to support bullying on Babble.> An option by poster to be able to revise? If someone doesn't wish to revise, they won't.
>
> Dinah> I'm not clear on what would result from this new option.
>
> would it, as the initial formulation seems to suggest, completely replace the original text with simply a link to a new text. This would show that there had been an original post, but not show what was in it. And if this is the case, where would this undeleted post reside? I don't understand where the original text would go if it's completely replace.
>
> NadezdaYes, the original text would be completely replaced with a link. It would be deleted from the original post (but saved by the server somewhere). Parts of it might or might not be included in the new post. The original post would stay where it was originally posted. The new post would be posted right after it.
For example, the original post is 1234.html and says:
> You're offensive!
The poster decides to rephrase that. They open the post, their cookies show they're the original poster, and they're offered the option to revise it. They wish to, so they do. In the meantime, 3 posts have been posted elsewhere. The original post, 1234.html, becomes:
> revised, see: 1238.html
The new post is 1238.html and says:
> I feel offended!
That's an I-statement, so hopefully that avoids bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original post yet and lessens them if they have.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 6:46:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
And say they have, and they have bad feelings, and they respond to what was posted in a civil but distressed manner while the other poster changes what they posted.
Now the insulted poster looks like a vindictive idiot. And worse yet, other posters would be saying to the original uncivil poster "oh you poor dear, I have no idea why anyone would be upset with you just for saying that you were offended." And you'd likely find it uncivil to say "Well, I was upset because the original post said xxxx."
Unless of course the victim stayed quiet about the injury.
I don't suppose anything I say will be of the smallest interest to you. Other than perhaps to cause you to do what I find offensive as quickly as possible. But I do not agree with what you are proposing. And to propose it for the reason you are proposing it, I find totally shocking. So that people can be uncivil and then fix it?
And you honestly believe that if I have read uncivil words, I'll feel better about them if they've been amended? I would likely feel better about them if the original poster apologized. I would feel nothing but contempt added to anger if the original poster, on top of insulting me, was cowardly enough to do so in such a way that they did not at least have the integrity to stand by their words and accept the consequences. Anger I can get over. Contempt, not so easily.
And they get to avoid consequences from you as well, so long as they hide their behavior fast enough.
You think this would make me feel *better* about them, or about you?!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't speak for anyone else. But better is not what I would feel.
I hope that others would help me out by preserving, one way or another, any words spoken against me in this manner. I'm not crazy about incivility, but I feel even more negatively about sneaky incivility.
I can't believe you're even suggesting this. It's like incivility in babblemail, only even worse, since posters can report incivility in a babblemail and hope to have that incivility acted upon. And they can keep their babblemail as proof.
This could lead to the same sort of taunting your buttons led to. Slightly better perhaps, since supposedly there would be a notice that the post was edited. But still enough to torment.
And that's not even an unintended byproduct of your proposal. It's the intent!
What has happened to you Dr. Bob?
Posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 0:14:00
I don't think it's an entirely bad idea, if there's a time limit. This would only partly be addressed by having the revision need to be the next post-- ie that you couldn't revise if anyone had posted a response. That seems a good restriction, but not enough.
I can't see revision per se, as bullying or sneaky incivility. People say things they regret--
Sometimes I, like (I assume) others, am on the verge of posting impulsively, and think better of it. The knowledge that I"ll regret my post can be buried under layers of emotion, though. It often surfaces later, and I'm very relieved that I didn't post. However, I can equally imagine having posted and then really regretting it. I don't see this as sneakiness, meanness, or bullying, but a natural and universal tendency to be defensive or threatened by the words of others who view things very differently.
So a time-limited chance to edit posts seems quite legitimate. Someone suggested an hour, but maybe a half hour would be better calibrated, since there's less opportunity for others to read the post, and then to find it's vanished. That does do odd things to one's sense of reality and is disruptive. So I'd prefer a limit of 20-30 minutes at most.
After that time frame, the post should stand, and an apology would make perfect sense. And of course, if someone responds, the post also should remain.
I can live with either system, and perhaps it should depend on how the community feels about it. There are many who haven't commented-- and perhaps their views could be solicited.
Nadezda
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
> And to propose it for the reason you are proposing it, I find totally shocking. So that people can be uncivil and then fix it?
>
> I hope that others would help me out by preserving, one way or another, any words spoken against me in this manner.
>
> Dinah> So a time-limited chance to edit posts seems quite legitimate. Someone suggested an hour, but maybe a half hour would be better calibrated, since there's less opportunity for others to read the post, and then to find it's vanished. That does do odd things to one's sense of reality and is disruptive. So I'd prefer a limit of 20-30 minutes at most.
>
> NadezdaRight, the idea is more fixing and less preserving.
I agree that a time limit makes sense, but I was thinking a longer one. Sometimes it helps to sleep on things, so maybe 24 hours?
The original post wouldn't just vanish. If someone read a post, came back later, and it was revised, how do you think that might that affect their sense of reality?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:11:47
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Nadezda on November 23, 2009, at 10:22:06
Real words can't be taken back.
People have to live with the consequences of having spoken them.
How is it fair to send the words out, have them hit their mark and draw blood, then have them disappear after the damage is done. And how is that not cowardly? If words are regretted after they are out there, an honest apology suits as well. We all say things we regret. But pretending that you can take them back with no consequences ignores the consequences to the person targeted. How is that right? No consequences to the uncivil, consequences to the person targeted.
I would make sure to instantly reply, if only a no message, to such remarks to me. And to save any remarks I saw to others, so that nothing can be denied in future.
That's what apologies are for. Or the "confirm post" step.
I can see people having lots of fun in the middle of the night. And tempting it would be too.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:18:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
And again, how is that fixing?
If I see incivility towards me (or towards someone else) that then disappears, does that make me feel better towards the uncivil? Or does it add to the insult?
I would hate anyone who did that to me, and hate Babble and you besides for allowing it done. While I wouldn't be inclined to hate either for mere incivility.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:38:38
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For the sake of everyone's sense of reality, if you're going to do this thing, why don't you leave the original post up too. Not on the main board perhaps, but a click away.
At the bottom of each revised post could be an icon link to "original post" so that if one wished to see what was revised, one could.
I'd rather you not do it at all. But I know how little that's worth.
At least this way, no one would think they're insane, no one would think anyone reacting to the original post was insane, and everyone could still see what happened.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2009, at 1:52:18
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2009, at 11:38:38
> Real words can't be taken back.
>
> How is it fair to send the words out, have them hit their mark and draw blood, then have them disappear after the damage is done.> If I see incivility towards me (or towards someone else) that then disappears, does that make me feel better towards the uncivil? Or does it add to the insult?
> why don't you leave the original post up too.
>
> At least this way, no one would think they're insane, no one would think anyone reacting to the original post was insane, and everyone could still see what happened.Real words can be retracted. My philosophy is to accept apologies, including retractions.
How would retracting something lead anyone to think anyone else was insane?
I can see that if a poster is out to draw blood, they could try to take advantage of the system. Are you feeling unsafe here? Is anybody else?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 7:13:12
In reply to Re: drawing blood, posted by Dr. Bob on November 24, 2009, at 1:52:18
Real words can't be changed after the fact. And you asked how reading one thing and coming back to find it had been altered might affect someone's sense of reality, or something like that. I answered.
So if it's retraction like the real world, why can't what was altered be available by a link? You can't change emails sent, or messages left, or words spoken. Retracting them formally does not alter the reality of what was done before.
Others would think someone is out of touch with reality if they respond to something that is no longer there. I explained that in an earlier post.
This has been a longstanding issue with me. You didn't even introduce it as a way to change errors in typing, or make factual corrections. You are introducing it as a way to deal with incivility. And I can't imagine how it's a useful way to deal with incivility. It's like a bullet made of ice. The evidence in the form of a bullet may disappear, but the damage is just as real.
If I feel unsafe at this moment, it's from an administrator who would propose that incivility is ok for 24 hours, as long as it is edited eventually. I don't even comprehend that as a possibility of being ok, unless you can also undo the hurt. If you wish to apply it solely to posts directed to you, that's fine. Or even posts that are insensitive to groups. But not to words directed towards an individual.
It is nothing at all like an apology. It is pretending after the fact that something didn't happen. It is trying to distort everyone's sense of reality into believing that what they see is not actually what they see.
I proposed that the original post be available by a link. That would be closer to a formal retraction of words that can't be taken back. It's a way for administration to avoid acting on incivility, like an apology, and like urging others to convince people to apologize. But it would not mess with people's reality. The reality of what actually happened. *Again, this is particularly important because you introduce the measure as a way to deal with incivility.* I think a good many of us are familiar with spouses or parents or others who act one way in private and another in public. People who harm us then deny that it ever happened. People who try to tell us that whatever we think happened didn't really happen. If you haven't, then I'm glad for you, but you might try to understand how Babble has always been is reassuring and sane, as in congruent with reality. And how what you are proposing seems an awful lot like gaslighting.
But I believe I am wasting my metaphorical breath.
Do you think allowing more incivility is the way to draw people back? Despite what people say is the reason they left? Are you disregarding what people actually said because you don't like it? Are you trying to substitute small bits of this or that that people said for addressing what people have said is the problem?
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:07:32
In reply to Re: drawing blood » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 7:13:12
You seem to see this as a face saving alternative to an apology to those who do not wish to make the concession of apologizing.
I'm ok with that. I'm ok with considering a retraction as a statement that someone realizes they oughtn't to have posted something.
I'm certainly ok with people editing technical issues in their post. Putting in their real name, correcting medication names, grammar or spelling errors, or clarifying something that seems difficult to understand on re-reading.
What I'm not ok with is the tacit undoing of what was done. The changing of something that people have likely already seen, to make it seem like that reality never happened. Either cowardice in trying to pretend they never did something they did do, or bullying by taunting people with things that then disappear, or gaslighting people to be unsure of what reality is. Maybe not even deliberately to hurt. Reality was a moving target at times growing up, not because of malice, but because reality was a moving target to my mother. It is a crazymaking situation, it is not fair, it provides an environment that makes bullying easier.
Providing a link to the original would do away with the objections of those to whom gaslighting is objectionable, while providing the opportunity of posters to withdraw what they wrote by amending it or to clarify what they meant if they unintentionally wrote something ambiguous. Or to fix what they wrote if they didn't understand the civility guidelines. If the problem is personal information, posters could contact Administration as they do now to amend the original post.
The original post would not have to be on the main board. It could be a link at the bottom next to "Edited on (date and time)". You wouldn't even need to put a time limit on editing, or link the ability to whether someone else has replied.
The original would not appear on the main board, and would not be googleable. So if people wish to remove something personal from their googleable babble profile they can do so even years later. With the original linkable from the post that replaces it.
Thus remaining a place of sanity and reality, preserving the historical record, and providing people with some remedy for their concerns about google.
A win win win win situation.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:13:38
In reply to An alternate proposal that I see as Win Win Win, posted by Dinah on November 24, 2009, at 9:07:32
Admin or other posters could even notify people privately about posts that are not direct attacks on others and suggest ways to amend them. That way those who feel humiliated at on board pbc's would be able to save face by amending their posts, and the original would still be there so that your goal of having actions be visible and teaching others what is and isn't ok on babble would still be met.
Posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For me, the later erasure of a post that I'd read would raise confusion in my mind about whether I had read it-- or read it right. When I read something to which I have a strong emotional reaction, I may later question whether the person really said one or another thing that I remember as distressing. Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
Maybe half an hour isn't long enough-- maybe an hour or even two would be more fair. However, I do think the cut-off should be well before twenty-four hours. That just gives too much opportunity for people, especially lurkers, to read the posts.
So I guess I think there could be some way of accommodating both needs, with revision within a deadline and/or response.
I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
On one hand, this shouldn't be decided based on how one or two people personally feel about the process. A change of this magnitude requires consultation-- of the kind that was missing in the prior insertion of the twitter and facebook links. So bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
On the other hand, if there is a lot of disagreement about how to proceed, it could cause further ruptures. Making important changes without letting people at least know in advance to prepare, or to challenge the direction we're taking, seems unwise. So maybe if you decide to make the change, you could present it for discussion and reflection while presenting it as something you do intend to do, as opposed to a mere suggestion.
One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above. It may seem impossible to meet the objections and satisfy everyone-- or most people-- and I can see how it might seem useless to try. So I'm not really sure how to proceed, except that I do think a more detailed explanation of some sort is really necessary.
Nadezda
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.