![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 123 to 147 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:01:15
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:54:31
IIRC, I've never used the word "clique" here before today, so I have no idea who you might be referring to. Perhaps you can flip what you're seeing as negativity into encouragement for Babble to be more supportive of different styles, etc..
Regardless of everything else, the OBVIOUS lack of members and posting says something. I do not see how that can be ignored or defended.
Why do you bother responding to these posts?
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:08:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:01:15
I'm sorry if I was mistaken in your previous use of the word clique. I've certainly perceived a certain consistency in your evaluation of those who continue to post at Babble. But I can be mistaken.
I wouldn't be surprised if the negativity on board helped contribute to the lack of posting. If I were a new member, I would be less likely to post here after reading these types of posts.
Would you prefer that I not bother to respond to your posts?
Posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:43:51
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:08:38
> Would you prefer that I not bother to respond to your posts?
I asked not because of my personal preference, but because these threads seem to be a source of angst for you.
Posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:47:37
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Dinah, posted by ron1953 on November 3, 2010, at 21:43:51
They aren't.
But thanks for the concern.
Posted by muffled on November 3, 2010, at 23:08:16
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 21:47:37
Just I want noboddy else to get caught here like I did :(
WONDERFUL people, but unfortunate admin :(
Posted by vwoolf on November 4, 2010, at 0:37:04
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:37:28
I couldn't agree with you more, Dinah. I often feel anxious about coming here, and drained by the undercurrent of what seems to me to be self-destructive negativity on the site.
Psychobabble is us, we are the community, we have to learn to uphold the social pact.
> It sometimes lessens my enjoyment of Babble, as someone who wishes to remain here, to have what appears to me to be a steady stream of criticism about Babble, about the personal qualities of remaining posters, and/or about Dr. Bob.
>
> Negativity can be draining to my energy level.
>
> I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
>
Posted by SLS on November 4, 2010, at 5:37:52
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:37:28
> I don't think I've ever been in a group of people where so many people who have chosen not to remain part of the group, still remain a part of the group for purposes of telling people how they no longer wish to be part of the group.
lol.
Yes.
Perhaps there is an attraction to the stimulation that involvement in altercations offer.
- Scott
Posted by damaged on November 4, 2010, at 6:05:47
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by SLS on November 4, 2010, at 5:37:52
I stumbled into this thread an i am new.I have read arcives before jioning an admired the fiesy posts.But it is a lame an distrutive site now,with the last true members hanging in with there teeth. I dare not post as i do so with feeling an i think my feelings are not civil in the way the site wants. So i will watch from the sidelines as i have do for years.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 8:53:35
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by damaged on November 4, 2010, at 6:05:47
"we have to learn to uphold the social pact."
Translation: Circle the wagons.
The referred-to posts that some are categorizing as negative are, to me, pleas for Babble to truly become a resource for people of all stripes and all styles, where members can freely, and without the burden of parsing every word in order to avoid the civility police, discuss important personal topics.
The simple FACT is that the current formula works for a very small (and declining) number of people. Even if I'm wrong about the reasons for this, there HAS to be a reason for the phenomenon, and it deserves to be examined.
John Lennon sang "Imagine", and that's what I'm asking people to do. Imagine how Babble might be if some things were handled differently. Just imagine - maybe there's common ground, after all. Change is not a bad thing.
I respect those who feel protective of Babble (I have a soft spot for Babble myself, because it's where I met my wife of nearly six years), but if current trends continue, there will be no Babble to protect (there's not much left at this point).
Posted by Toph on November 4, 2010, at 8:54:24
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 3, 2010, at 19:37:28
> ...I have, in the past, proposed that Dr. Bob reserve participation on the Administrative board to those who are actively posting, on topic, on other boards.You seriously thought the only people who should be able to participate on the Admin site are people who are currently active on other boards? A person's concern for administrative issues should not be defined by recent participation. Many former active participants check in to Babble periodically and may have a greater interest in the welfare of the site than you and other active posters. I have no less interest and genuine concern for the issues of my family because I am not as involved with them on a daily basis now than I did when I was young and more interacting. Your proposal is one of exclusion and puzzles me from what I know of you.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:02:38
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 4, 2010, at 8:54:24
>
> Many former active participants check in to Babble periodically and may have a greater interest in the welfare of the site than you and other active posters.You think that people who post only to criticize Bob or Babble policies have a greater interest in the welfare of the site than those who actually post supportively on the site? I guess it depends on how you define "the welfare of the site". Is the intent to support posters? Do you have any desire to support posters in other ways? Do you even read the other boards? If you do, and you see someone in need, do you try to help? Could part of your motivation be your anger towards Bob rather than your desire to support posters? It's posters who make up the site, not Dr. Bob.
> I have no less interest and genuine concern for the issues of my family because I am not as involved with them on a daily basis now than I did when I was young and more interacting.
Do you interact with them now primarily to criticize how things are done in your family? If, say, one sibling is taking on the burden of caring for your parents, does your concern take the form of complaining about their actions or about your parents? If so, how do you think they view your concern?
I suppose it is a sort of caring. Certainly Dr. Bob sees it that way.
But since those former posters who take such an interest in Babble rarely (if ever) seem to be positive about Dr. Bob and Babblers, it leads to a rather one sided contribution. The balance on the board becomes skewed from what it would be should those making use of the board be the contributors.
Again, I don't see the difference between this and a party where some people come, find it's not to their taste, say so on their way out, then return again and again to tell the host, in front of the remaining guests, just what they're doing wrong and what a miserable party it is. Put yourself in the place of the partygoers who are trying to enjoy the party. How would you feel? Would you want to hear over and over and over and *over* again what a horrible party it is?
Aside from anything else, it would require those who wish to post on Admin to actually contribute support to the other boards. I'd welcome that. If you choose to see it as exclusive, that's one way to see it. It could also be seen as asking *more* involvement.
I like you, Toph. I like Muffled. I like Alex. I'd love to interact with you all. But I don't feel like I'm really interacting with you as it stands. Exactly who is being inclusive or exclusive? Exactly who is welcoming the chance to interact with others?
It doesn't matter what I think. Dr. Bob obviously sees it as a positive contribution to Babble.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 10:35:19
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Toph, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:02:38
Dinah said, " Is the intent to support posters? Do you have any desire to support posters in other ways? Do you even read the other boards? If you do, and you see someone in need, do you try to help?"
Board stats from yesterday:
Medication: 88 posts
Social: 22 posts in 1 thread by 7 posters
Psychology: 2 posts in 1 thread, one of which was Bob doing a block
Alternative: 24 posts in 6 threads by 6 posters
Faith: 2 posts in 1 thread by 2 posters
Health: zip
Neurotransmitters: 1 post
Newbies: zip
Politics: zip
So, other than the Meds board, there's not a heck of a lot going on, and it's going on with a handful of posters. There's not much to support even if one wanted to.
If Babble was an active and thriving site with lots of members who were posting regularly, and who were content with the rules, I'd have nothing to say. But that is clearly not the case.
I'd love to support folks, but alas, the lights are on but nobody's home.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:39:56
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 10:35:19
I suspect that if you really put your mind to it, you could find someone to support other than by protesting Bob. If that's your wish. In fact, if you add your voice to supporting others, babble might be a more appealing place. People like to post where there are those who will be supportive and interested in what they have to say.
Posting has dropped off for many reasons. I could include in those reasons the general tone of negativity.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:48:40
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » Dinah, posted by Toph on November 4, 2010, at 8:54:24
> Many former active participants check in to Babble periodically and may have a greater interest in the welfare of the site than you and other active posters.
"Greater". Not even equal, but "greater". There does seem to be that undertone to many posts on Admin. Perhaps it's thought that if people really cared about Babblers they ought to ignore them and concentrate on being critical of Bob.
And to what purpose? I seriously doubt Dr. Bob is going to suddenly, upon reaching a certain threshold of negative remarks from those who have no desire to post here, smack his head and declare he's been wrong all this time about blocks and posting standards.
Exactly what are all these people who are said to care so much about Babble trying to achieve? Is the goal to change Babble or to make sure everyone knows how awful it is, so everyone leaves? If it's to change Babble, this method hasn't really seemed to have had a great deal of effect.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 10:50:52
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:39:56
THERE'S VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO SUPPORT !!!! (caps intentional)
What part of that is unclear? I'm not protesting; I'm encouraging members to look at the facts of this site's apparent moribundity, and to consider possible enhancements, which includes questioning Bob (for reasons obvious to me).
Again, if the status quo pointed to vitality, I'd have no criticism.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:57:37
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 10:50:52
> Again, if the status quo pointed to vitality, I'd have no criticism.
You've only been criticizing since the level of posting dropped? Before that you had no criticism? When do you see that as having occurred? Your only intent is to increase the level of posting? How do you see your strategy as working? Do you think Dr. Bob will change?
There are posts from those seeking support on Medication right now. Why do you say there is no one to support? Has there been zero posting this month on every board? By your own statistics, there has been posting.
The sad part is that the environment created by Dr. Bob's rule is one that appeals more to those who dislike unpleasantness. Yet his policies regarding Admin encourage the kind of discord that these posters may be trying to avoid. Perhaps that does leave Babble as neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:09:07
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:57:37
EVERYBODY dislikes unpleasantness, but it a very real part of life, no matter where. Why aren't there droves of unpleasantry dislikers flocking to this site? And, in any case, the definition for "unpleasant" is NOT universal. Cleaning hose may not be pleasant, but it's necessary.
OK, I agree that there's activity on the meds board, but as I am no longer personally involved in that area of "therapy", I have no reason to post there. And as I stated earlier, I'm leery about the idea of such advice. So, what does that leave to support?
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:15:29
In reply to Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:09:07
No interest in alternative either?
How about therapy?
What aspects of mental health support are you interested in being part of?
I manage to get through my life without very much unpleasant conflict. I tend to believe that it's possible, preferable even, to discuss issues in a constructive way. I rarely find people are all that willing to compromise or change in a nonconstructive dialogue.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:29:32
In reply to Re: Under Bobs thumb, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 10:48:40
> And to what purpose? I seriously doubt Dr. Bob is going to suddenly, upon reaching a certain threshold of negative remarks from those who have no desire to post here, smack his head and declare he's been wrong all this time about blocks and posting standards.
That's what saddens me about Dr. Bob's interactions with Twinleaf this time. I think Twinleaf recognized the benefit of approaching Dr. Bob in a more constructive way, and Dr. Bob didn't perceive the difference as I did.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:31:22
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:15:29
> No interest in alternative either?
>
> How about therapy?
>
> What aspects of mental health support are you interested in being part of?
>
> I manage to get through my life without very much unpleasant conflict. I tend to believe that it's possible, preferable even, to discuss issues in a constructive way. I rarely find people are all that willing to compromise or change in a nonconstructive dialogue.Unfortunately, it goes full-circle that I'd be interested in being part of most of Babble, but have no desire to play Bob's head games regarding "civility". He blocked a member yesterday for using a synonym for donkey that starts with an "a". It just gets dumber and dumber.
I can understand *wanting* to avoid conflict, but I cannot understand denial of it's reality and potential benefit. I'm afraid that you (and possibly others) think that I'm somehow in favor of Babble becoming some kind of free-for-all, but that would be quite incorrect. But wanting a mental health support site to be lala land is not realistic. We all *like* to hear what we want to hear, but when it becomes a necessity, it gets weird.
I find that people who are intractable by choice are not willing to compromise or change, regardless of the flavor of dialogue.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:31:22
I haven't had all that much luck in getting Dr. Bob to change myself. I also am not fond of banging my head against the wall, so I decide if any given decision is a deal breaker or not. And if there's any way I can get what I want while still following the rules. There are things that would make me unwilling to continue to post on Babble. But that would be my decision, and once I gave up on Dr. Bob changing, I think I'd give up on Dr. Bob changing.
FWIW, the block was not for using the word. The block was apparently for turning off auto asterisking and using the word, if I understand correctly. If that's what happened, I'm sure you would agree that it would indicate an intent to not abide by site guidelines. Not abiding by site guidelines is what the block is for. Again, Dr. Bob as host of this site has the right to ask people to step outside if they aren't willing to abide by site guidelines. My mistake if I'm incorrect, but that's how I read Dr. Bob's post.
When it comes right down to it, Babble is not for everyone. You see Dr. Bob's rules as head games. I see them as the guidelines he sets for site participation. Either way, if someone isn't willing to abide by them, if the benefits of posting don't outweigh the cost of not being able to say what they wish to say, then Babble isn't the site for them. Protests aren't going to change that. Particularly protests about things that Dr. Bob has long since decided.
Why is it so important to you that Babble reflect your values rather than Dr. Bob's? Does everywhere need to reflect your values? Or does Babble have particular significance? I doubt Babble has changed. What has changed in you that makes you unwilling to post at Babble, while wishing so strongly to post at a place that does not suit you?
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:49:31
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
My apologies. Turning off auto asterisking does not necessarily indicate intent to ignore site guidelines. But as Dr. Bob said, the choice does carry with it a greater responsibility to being aware of word choice.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 11:43:54
I'm not asking that Babble reflect my values; I'm asking Babble to consider *respecting* different values.
My-way-or-the-highway does not seem to be an atmosphere conducive of cooperation. It is, by definition, exclusive, where, IMO, the implied message is "say it my way or STFU".
Also, regarding PBCs and blocks, public humiliation is to me, uncivil.
Posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality, posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 11:54:10
I think that there could be a case made for blocks being made private. Originally I favored transparency, and disliked places where people suddenly disappeared for no reason that anyone knew. Or that only some people knew, leading to all sorts of off board gossip. But I see the benefit of the other way as well. However, if Dr. Bob's primary value is transparency, how could he reflect his values and also reflect your values that on board admin actions are shaming and wrong?
I think there may be two mutually exclusive sets of values at play here. How is Dr. Bob to reflect his values about language and respect for others, while also allowing language that does not match his values and discourse that he does not find respectful?
Babble reflects the values of Dr Bob because he maintains the website. Other websites reflect other values. I might not be comfortable at those sites because the values they reflect are not compatible with my own. That doesn't make Dr. Bob's values right or wrong, or the other website values right or wrong. No one is out to be unkind or harmful on purpose. People put different priorities on values that in and of themselves are commendable. Choices have to be made about which values to favor. Dr. Bob has made his choices.
Posted by ron1953 on November 4, 2010, at 12:10:02
In reply to Re: Boosting Site Vitality » ron1953, posted by Dinah on November 4, 2010, at 12:01:22
Dinah, I read your words and they read as if you're Bob's official spokesperson. Is that the case? Can Bob not speak for himself? I'm aware of Bob's rules, but I do not assume to know what it is he's trying to accomplish, mainly because he hasn't said so. I will not take your word on it.
One of the main problems I see with Bob's civility rules is that they're a moving target.
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.