![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 253 to 277 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
In reply to I'm pro-block, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
> Believe it or not I do support blocks, and I have said so often before.
>
> I think it is like the frame in therapy, without which it is not therapy. And like the frame in therapy, everyone hates it.
>
> I think that if we as posters are prepared to look, we will see ourselves reflected in the way we respond here on Babble. Bob is merely representing, in a shadowy internet kind of way, something internal to ourselves. He stays so far out of Babble that we can't know what he is really thinking. And so we start to project.....The frame (or block) represents the edge between ourselves and reality, and so defines us. It's not really about Bob at all, although of course he is the one who holds the frame and so catches all the crossfire.
>
> vwoolfThanks for reframing (sorry, I couldn't resist) this discussion. Could you elaborate on how a block might define a poster?
This reminds me of an idea we talked about when I was there, a new board that would focus on, to use your language above, learning about oneself from how one responds here. I like that idea very much. A lot of details would need to be worked out, but maybe it would make sense to start by trying to get an idea of how much interest there might be?
--
> I think Dr. Bob should have engaged [Twinleaf] more on an explanation of where the limits lie rather than to direct threats of blocking.
> 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.
>
> Dinah> Twinleaf's case has been the saddest of my time at Babble, I suppose because so evidently she has tried to be a kind, considerate and supportive poster.
>
> I'm not saying having issues of principle justifies anything, but I do think context is important. A person who had been a deputy once said that the training involved evaluation of posts out of context. ... Maybe he has some problem with people taking up issues of principle, I don't know.
>
> sigismundDeputy training involves posts out of context before posts in context. Like learning math involves multiplication tables before word problems. What issues of principle did you see her as taking up? Maybe I was wrong to engage her the way I did. Twinleaf, are you reading this? Do you have any questions about where the limits lie?
--
> Yes, they were straightforward, and yes, they were brutal, but I got more therapeutic value in six months than I had received in years of professional "help". ... The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it.
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
>
> ron1953Ron did seem to be exposing himself to danger and we did seem to be going through some stuff here. Was he saying he wanted me to be more straightforward and brutal?
> I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked.
>
> muffled> "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
> The sinners are much more fun" - Billy Joel
>
> ron1953Since your freedom of speech is limited here, I guess your freedom to have fun may be, too.
--
> Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
> LOL, oh well.
> I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
>
> muffledThe FAQ section on the buttons:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#sharetweet
The settings page:
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
Remember that if you turn them on, they're displayed after all your posts, not just particular ones.
The server automatically welcomes new posters on Twitter (which is linked to Facebook), but some tweets are from me. There might not have been any recent ones from me when you looked before, but there are now:
http://twitter.com/psycho_babel
--
> I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
>
> SolsticeI also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
> > I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> I also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
>
> But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
>
> BobYes, and after that initial post, I did eventually run across hyperfocus' excellent Elders Council idea. I think that any idea, or combination of ideas, that can work to achieve your objectives in a more successful and more merciful format deserves your serious consideration.
If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly. Maybe they can work together.
The current blocking system is only achieving part of your objectives, and it does so at the expense of other objectives. It's often not possible to have everything, but I think some very worthwhile ideas have been thrown in the hat that have a much higher chance of not only more closely achieving all of your objectives, but also of healing so long and deep injuries to the community that take place in the current blocking system.
There is no avoiding the reality that every single thing we do in life has a consequence - whether pleasant or unpleasant. But if in administering consequences we get strapped into a narrow notion that in order to be effective consequences have to be harsh, unyielding, exponential, and absolute... then we are shutting out the creative ideas that really might be able to achieve All the goals of consequences (of the blocking sort here).
Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power. And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic. A poster may be swimming along just fine, and suddenly find themselves threatened with a block and be shocked. For people in this community, threats of any type are acutely felt, and many have not sufficiently recovered from the trauma that got them here in the first place to meet your expectation that they say to themselves "Oh, looks like I need to get myself a civility buddy to help me figure this out." The people who can do that already do it. But there are a lot of posters who find themselves facing a block who need someone with a helpful and compassionate heart to just step in and model for them, explain to them, guide them back to the 'straight & narrow.' They won't find their way back on their own. And a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone. The ones that can do that already will. But there are a bunch of good folks on here who struggle with it - and end up with excessively long blocks, or they huddle behind a rock with their arms over their heads, scared to death to risk posting.
There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
> Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
Wherever it's set, it detects someone's breath spray.
> Z sees you as unpredictable
And how does Z see themselves? And what brings Z back after even a very long block?
> > submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
>
> (ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)ho ho = it's clear the disobedience here isn't civil
> > protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
>
> If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'...In the context of civil disobedience here:
officials = me and deputies
insults and assaults = incivility
resisters = martyrsBob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
> If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969367.html
> Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power.
The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.
> And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.
> a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
I think it's worth a try. The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
> There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
True, but the system is only half of the equation.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
>
> In the context of civil disobedience here:
>
> officials = me and deputies
> insults and assaults = incivility
> resisters = martyrs
>
> BobWhat deputies????
Definition of INSULT
1: a gross indignity
2: injury to the body or one of its parts; also : something that causes or has a potential for causing such insult <pollution and other environmental insults>Definition of ASSAULT
a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)Definition of UNCIVIL
1: not civilized : barbarous
2: lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite <uncivil remarks>
3: not conducive to civic harmony and welfare
Definition of RESISTER
: one that resists; especially : one who actively opposes the policies of a governmentDefinition of MARTYR
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principleSo, to me not all assaults are uncivil.
Alot of what are being considered asaults are just discussion.
Sometimes insults are just facts being pointed out.
Sometimes resisters will choose to martyr themsleves, some times not.
But resisters doesn't equal martyrs.
If noone ever resisted, we women still wouldn't have a vote.
If noone ever resisted, black people would still be treated as less than human. If noone resisted there would be no government policy changed for the better.
etc.
And I not trying to be disobedient here.
I just want to effect change where I can.
I have effected changes w/in the area I live.
If people band together with a common goal policies can be changed.
Its the squeaky wheel that gets oiled in this world.
If everyone just sat at home and noone dared to speak up, this world would be a sorry place.
I beleive that where I am in community, I have a voice, along with others in the community. Be it my municipality, school district, church etc.
I want to be involved here, but over the years I have concluded that I can't work w/Bob cuz he doesn't seem to work with others well. His communication skills, which are uber important in this scenario, seem to be lacking.
I can't work w/someone who is a rougue and doesn't work WITH the group.Definition of ROGUE
1: resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable <capsized by a rogue wave>If Bob could change his spots, I'd run w/him, but I have yet to see any real change in his overall behaviours.
he has 'seemed' to work w/us before.
Is this just the same thing? I don't know.
Look at the whole deputy scenario.
So, ya, I have eternal faith in miracles, but alot of doubt about Bob's abilities to carry these ideas through.
Not that Bob is bad. Bob is Bob. I even kinda like him to some extent. But I Can't abide his managment of this place.
I still want to dream tho....
Posted by Deneb on November 9, 2010, at 23:16:37
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities-yeah, sure :(, posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
Hey Muffled,
I just wanted to say I'm sorry you were so hurt over your block. I know blocks hurt a lot. I've been blocked several times and at times I didn't think I was going to survive. Dr. Bob blocked me all those times. I don't hate him though. It's not personal even though it feels personal at the time. I'll probably be hurt if Dr. Bob blocks me again, but I wouldn't be devastated this time. I also do everything I can to be civil to avoid a block in the first place.
Dr. Bob doesn't want anything bad to happen to you if you get blocked and get upset. He's just doing his job as admin. He has to block people when they are uncivil. He has to be fair and apply the rules equally to everyone.
((((Muffled)))))
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
Dr. Bob - I can't tell you how much I appreciate the dialogue..
> > If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
>
> Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?Yes.. and I posted more about it in response to another of your posts. Bottom line (in my way of thinking) is that naturally, all CB's will be volunteer. It's not a job anyone will be coerced to perform. I think they need to be an organized group.. an 'entity' if you will. As I said in my other post, people who have the insight to understand they need a helping hand probably already get it. I'm focusing on the members who are genuinely unclear about why their post was incivil. Incivil posts are generally the product of 'hot' emotions. 'Hot' emotions generally shut down rational thinking and executive functioning. Some members may have emotions that escalate faster than they are realistically able to manage. There are situations like PTSD that (as I'm sure you know) keeps their fight or flight on a hair trigger... there's emotional dysregulation, all kinds of things. Members who cope with being split into 'parts' may end up with one part losing control, and the other parts paying the price.. a dilemma Muffled so poetically described repeatedly. That's where your expectations get unwieldy. I'm thinking of a Civility Buddy "process" where an incivil poster is 'deposited'.. and if they want to restore their posting privileges, they will walk through the process with a Civility Buddy to completion - satisfaction of your legitimate requirement that they repair the breech.
>
> The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.I don't think enough factors of the dynamic are included. Think of what we know about abused women and why they stay in abusive marriages, even at the risk of the well being of their children. Do they have the power to walk out the door with their kids and find refuse? Sure. But they don't FEEL the power. That's what I'm trying to distinguish. If a poster is cited for incivility, each and every time they will have to make a choice. i) CB Process; or ii) the mercy of Dr. Bob. That kind of a thing will TEACH them about the power they have in a tangible way.
"Power to stop posting" - while it certainly 'is' a choice they can make.. please understand that it seems silly to me to consider that viable. They are here because they want to post. Set something up that helps the folks who have not been able to keep themselves out of trouble.
> > And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
>
> If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.This is might be too loose of a thing to work well with the posters who have their own spot in your block book. These are folks whose emotions get hot very quickly. They need a structured process where their privileges are suspended - and they have to make a coice. Cooperate with a CB who will walk them to restoration, or opt for the mercy of Dr. Bob. You're asking people who's brains have been hijacked by hot emotions to think, reason, and figure things out as if they are in a more rational state. That is just not a fair expectation.. and in my estimation, that is why the blocks - even year long blocks - are not successful. It will never end if the status quo is maintained.
> > a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
>
> I think it's worth a try.I am thrilled beyond what I can possibly describe!
> The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
Well.. in what I envision, this shouldn't detract from the system's effectiveness. Civility Buddies would be an organized group of balanced, respected members who have volunteered to serve. An incivil poster who hasn't retracted on their own would be 'deposited' into the CB process. They would not be able to post, and would have a single decision to make. Either: i) work with a CB who is available; or ii) sit there and wait for a CB you like; or iii) throw yourself upon the mercy of Dr. Bob. If they need a space of time to restore their emotional 'baseline' - suspension of privileges provides that. Depending on the nature of the incivility and nature of the incivil poster, the CB 'process' could be hours short - or days/weeks long. If they become unacceptably incivil to the CB 'walking' with them, they can be defaulted to the mercy of Dr. Bob. I think the main thing is that this kind of process would provide the space of time for emotions to cool, for rationality to be restored, and for them to work with someone who can model for them - a peer who can help them understand where their communication crossed the line.Entirely eliminating blocks is unrealistic. But this provides a process that is flexible and responsive to a poster's willingness to learn and cooperate.
Again, thank you for dialoging about it Bob. You've got a motivated bunch of people here, and I have confidence that they will see it through if you will stay in this thing while we all work together to put together a structure likely to more mercifully succeed than the current one at meeting your objectives.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:37:50
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
I think it's really important to point out that some civility buddies might not be comfortable with a forced civility buddy situation, and that's perfectly ok. There is a very different dynamic with people who voluntarily seek advice.
For those volunteers who feel comfortable with that situation, mandatory civility buddies could certainly be an option. Dr. Bob was enthusiastic about the idea a while back, but posters were less enthusiastic.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:43:43
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969518.html
What you describe, with mandatory civility buddies, could be a part of what Dr. Bob is asking about here.
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 1:27:08
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:37:50
> I think it's really important to point out that some civility buddies might not be comfortable with a forced civility buddy situation, and that's perfectly ok. There is a very different dynamic with people who voluntarily seek advice.
You are absolutely right. Right now, the Civility Buddy system is informal. (let me know if I don't understand it correctly). If someone is getting upset about something, they can contact their CB and do a 'consult.' Vent... have a post reviewed before submittal... get guidance about staying inside the lines.Maybe the informal CB set up that exists would continue just as it is. The people who use it, though, are not the ones I'm hoping to help. I'd speculate they don't end up with gross blocks. Maybe a PBC from time to time, but they have figured out how to help themselves stay out of trouble.
A 'formal' CB process would of course be staffed by volunteers as well. Those volunteering for it would obviously have to recognize that most of those 'deposited' in the formal CB process are walking in without an understanding of why what they posted was not civil. They might indeed be upset. Bob could 'suspend' their posting privileges while they decide whether to cooperate with the CB process or not. If they opt to cooperate, their immediate motivation will be avoiding a block. If they fight against the CB assisting them, become incivil toward their CB, etc.. then they will end up in Bob's hands. I think what it will alllow for is 1) Takes Bob out of the equation - the whole trigger-finger with the blocks thing; 2) a suspension of posting privilege with the very real possibility of avoiding a regular block; 3) a cool-off period where they may recover nicely on their own - or at least be willing to genuinely engage in the CB process that will get them where they want to go - which is actively posting. As peers, CB's will be able to talk to and relate to these folks much better than Bob can in his role as admin. He is perceived as a bona fide threat - especially by those who get blocked repeatedly.I don't think it should be viewed or characterized as "forcing" anyone or anything. As it is, people commit various levels of incivility and there is only one option - they are at the mercy of Bob's perceptions - his time to process it in context - and whether they colored outside the lines before and have a block escalation thing going on. They can still choose that route. That would actuallly be the 'default.' But with what I'm talking about, they could also opt for assistance by a cohesive group of Civility Buddies who are committed to the process of modeling, explaining, teaching civil responses and repair work to members who got off track. Anyone who wants to fight against that probably needs to be blocked. At least, though, they'd have the choice. And even for those who end up blocked - there could be a mechanism where they come back when they are ready and contact a 'formal' CB to start the process of repair.
Again, these are just ideas. Dinah - your experience working with and through things here gives you insight that I won't have - so why don't you just play with the ideas. Run scenarios through your head. I an really, really good at problem-solving and designing systems so I will help in any way I can to help put something together that will work for the community in its goal to have a more merciful system for addressing incivility than the one in place now.
>
> For those volunteers who feel comfortable with that situation, mandatory civility buddies could certainly be an option. Dr. Bob was enthusiastic about the idea a while back, but posters were less enthusiastic.
No one would be 'forced' to use a CB. It would not be mandatory. That would be fraught with problems. Incivil posters would have to choose it to get access. If they don't choose it - then they just go the current route and are at Bob's mercy. He can just block away - and no one need feel distressed about it, because they opted for it themselves. Of course.. if their head clears later and they decide using a CB might be to their benefit afterall... then they are welcome to access the CB system at that point... and after they have worked though the process.. the block they'd initially opted for becomes unnecessary.I just don't think the punishing nature of the current blocking set-up facilitates what Bob wants to create. You've aptly cited the big problem with overlooking the offending poster's willingness to get within the lines. That is huge. And I think that even if there is a delay in that willingness rising to the surface - as soon as a blocked poster voices they are willing - they should be welcomed with open arms into the process. There's no place in the system for incessant arguing about blocks - and PBC's - but I think that with the process I'm suggesting - there would be no need to argue about blocks.
Solstice
Posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
> Nominations and elections?
>
> Solstice> Is Bob going to give a council some tools?
> Is he going to give them as a council some of his power?
>
> muffled> I think it would be a good idea to have a review board. As it stands now, blocks have no real relation to a poster's willingness to return and abide by site rules. I'd rather see blocks be lifted if a poster agrees to abide by site guidelines. The first time, it could be based solely on their word that they are ready. After that, they could propose concrete ways that could help them stay within site guidelines. For example, choosing a civility buddy, choosing not to post on topics that have proved troublesome, etc.
>
> Dinah>What if the council had the power to lift blocks? (after some minimum cooling-off period) What tools would they need? >Would they be given criteria for making their decisions or would they have the freedom to decide however they wanted?
>Would there be any requirements besides being nominated?>FYI, requirements to be a deputy:
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#required
>Bob
> I think if Bob were to actually set up a "council" of some sort to consult and discuss his admin policies with, it should be balanced with different points of view.
>
> Free>Would you want to elect them?
>Bob
Hmm.... Council of Wise Elders and Civil Buddies...Thich Nhat Hanh and Linehan would be excellent models...too bad they're not available.You're serious, Bob? I do see your openness and I appreciate it, but...
This is all very complicated, and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage. Many of the people who received long blocks were wonderful "civil" people(some were even die-hard Bob/Babble supporters), but they got caught up in a maddening cycle of getting pbc'd/blocked for some unfair interpretations. Mistakes are bound to happen, but it happened enough to not feel safe anymore.
Yeah, it's not easy.
Honestly, a lot of people getting in the mix with a lot of power to say what's civil and not civil, and to block and unblock, with different interpretations. To dictate which threads/topics are/aren't troublesome to post on, could get way more confusing, crazy-making, etc.
Given a choice, I would take you, Bob, and Racer (who's doing a great job moderating) doing admin work WITH REDUCED BLOCKS. And if anyone wants a civility buddy for some advice, great.
To answer this part of your question: "Would there be any requirements besides being nominated?"
A council member should possess objectivity and humility, without any vested interests in the outcome of a given conflict.
Far as electing Babblers...off the top of my head, Twinleaf and Sigsmund (sorry again Sig) would be qualified. And Solstice. (Hey, Solstice, I may not agree with all of your ideas but I do appreciate your sincere efforts. :-))
Posted by alexandra_k on November 10, 2010, at 3:54:20
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
> > Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
> Wherever it's set, it detects someone's breath spray.That is your choice. It is your choice to warn / block people for breath spray levels (at times). It is your choice not to be less trigger happy (when it suits you).
It isn't just MY perception that you are too trigger happy with your 'uncivil' labels and your blocks. Many posters have posted about this over the years (oh, yeah, you forgot).
> And what brings Z back after even a very long block?
I'm actually wondering that myself... I think part of what you like about this whole 'civility monitor' and 'elders council' idea is that it focuses the community on supporting your decisions to make people stop using breath spray to detract from the issue of your (unfairly) labeling people 'uncivil' and blocking them for it.
I'm going to be going now, actually.
Best, all.
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 7:34:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
Very fair points, Free
> This is all very complicated,
I agree that it sounds complicated... but I think that operationally, it's a lot less complicated than it looks. Lots of new ideas are being thrown into the hat, which is good - but looks complicated - until we pick out the ones that we pick out and piece together to build the framework.> and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage.
We don't have a system yet, so let's just talk about Civility Buddies. In what I envision, they would not be "Little Bob's" scouring the site for incivilities. They wouldn't issue PBC's or blocks. The people volunteering to serve already have a history of being what I think of as "Levelers" or "Peacemakers." With no systemn at all, they already tend to step in when things are heating up and blow cool wind into the mix... and do so very effectively. This would just be a formalization of their role as "Peacemakers." They are not "juries," much less "judges."Civility Buddies - whether informal or formal, are NOT a recreation of Deputies. Maybe they don't need any power at all. They are identiefied.. maybe they have a CB after their names.. for example Dinah's would say: Dinah, CB. That way it would be easy to find one when you need one - and no one would have to keep track of remembering who all is in that role. They'd be active posters anyway - so CB's will be visibly present.
The only one who has the authority to PBC or Block would be Dr. Bob. He would continue to identify and cite incivilities, just as he does now. PBC's would work just like they do now. Maybe CB's would notice a PBC, because the PBC'd poster might (or might not) access the informal Civility Buddy system. The formal CB process isn't activated until Bob issues a Block. Civility Buddies wouldn't be responsible for issuing PBC's or blocks. They are not the police. The CB system is more like the bail bondsmen, so-to-speak. Maybe the only 'power' they have is to release a poster who's posting privilege has been suspended, based on that poster's cooperation with the CB process.
The goal is NOT to hunt down incivilities. The goal is to restore posting privileges to members who find themselves blocked (or in danger of a block) by Bob.
And in reality - there really don't seem to be that many PBC's or blocks, but I only frequent Psychology, Social and Admin. On those boards days and weeks can go by before I see a PBC.. and longer before I see a block.
I hope what I'm describing sounds like something folks can work with. And bottom line is that as it is, Bob issues PBC's, block warnings, and blocks at his own discretion as it is. The system I'm thinking of wouldn't change that. It would just provide a mechanism for repair to take place.. for blocks to be released.. for privileges to be restored.. for much less contention over valued posters being 'banished.' Posters themselves would, in essence, be setting the length of their blocks... because accessing the Civility Buddy system is the key that unlocks the block.
Just to let those who are actively participating in our effort to construct something, I have a full day of responsibilities that will prevent me from checking in until later this evening.
MAIN THING: No judges or juries. Nobody scouring the site for incivilities. Everybody has the right to monitor their own selves, including asking for help if they find themselves getting 'heated.' If they find themselves facing a block (or find themselves blocked), rather than them or others fighting the merits of the citation, they can call on a CB to help them work their way out of the block. CB's won't always be available. They may have to wait hours or days to get through the process - but they won't be waiting weeks, months, or a year for relief.
Feedback?
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 7:59:57
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 1:27:08
The only informal civility buddy system that exists now are between two posters who work out an arrangement for themselves. There's no way of knowing how often it's used. I don't hear a lot of talk about it at all.
Dr. Bob has *just* ok'd a concept where people would be available to answer civility questions, or in general be open to helping posters who ask to get comfortable with the civility guidelines or avoid blocks. It's a brand new idea, and I'm not sure what will happen with it. The only designation would be a list of people who are willing to do it.
It's a far different thing to be involved with pairing up with a poster who would be blocked otherwise, even if they chose the civility buddy as the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's a different level of commitment, and a different level of stress. If a poster felt willing to volunteer to do that, it'd be great. For myself, it would depend on my relationship with the poster. It's been my experience from previous suggestions from Dr. Bob along these lines that posters don't really appreciate the idea of having someone check their posts. The resulting tension could be difficult.
But what I really want is to clarify to those considering volunteering that that would be an additional level of commitment they could volunteer for. This is a new concept, and I think it might deter volunteers if they were unsure of the level of responsibility that would be involved. At this point, volunteering would just mean being willing to help those who are unsure of the rules, or I statements, or Dr. Bob's requirements.
Anything to do with the council of elders would be separate entirely. That would be a different subset of posters, although I suppose the subsets could intersect.
Peacemakers don't *have* to be certified by Dr. Bob, or have any special title. Dr. Bob would prefer, from what I gather of his posts, that all posters be peacemakers. Stepping into a current situation unasked is probably best done by those posters who believe they can help in that given situation. And perhaps best not done by someone who has been appointed to do so, due to the resentment that can arise. Or at least that's been my experience. Dr. Bob and other posters may believe differently.
I know you've read the archives. Are you aware of the anger that can result from efforts to help? I suspect that anyone with formal standing may be seen as a tool of Dr. Bob. Any effort to get people to follow site guidelines can realistically be seen that way, no matter the intent of the helper. That might lessen the effectiveness of an intervention.
But perhaps my previous experience makes me overly cautious.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:12:25
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
Former deputies are current posters, you know.
I'd also say that we enforced Dr. Bob's policies at whatever level of strictness was currently requested by him. It did change, and we did our best to comply.
It's true that there are fewer admin actions now, in part because there are fewer posts, in part because there are fewer posters unfamiliar with site guidelines, in part because Dr. Bob varies a lot in his time to oversee Babble so that things aren't flagged as much when he isn't here while the exact same thing might be flagged when he is here, and perhaps in part because with his lowered time and with the lowered posting volume, his perception might be that the standards can be loosened some. I've always suspected that some of Dr. Bob's "inconsistency" could be due to his view of the current demands of the site. Deputies did not have that power.
Deputies didn't have any desire to parse posts with a fine tooth comb. We did perhaps have a greater commitment to consistency. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your view of consistency. And we were around on a more consistent basis. Again, that can be a good or bad thing depending on your view of consistency. Certainly lowered oversight could be welcome by those who prefer greater freedom.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 9:14:36
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on November 10, 2010, at 3:54:20
> I think part of what you like about this whole 'civility monitor' and 'elders council' idea is that it focuses the community on supporting your decisions to make people stop using breath spray to detract from the issue of your (unfairly) labeling people 'uncivil' and blocking them for it.
I'm thinking the point of it is to get people to comply with the civility guidelines, whatever their feelings or beliefs. Is that such a bad thing for Dr. Bob to want?
Is a reduction of blocks only a good thing to you if it comes from Dr. Bob changing his standards?
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 9:24:43
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Solstice, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 7:59:57
Dinah - your wealth of experience behind your contributions is what can bring this thing to life.
And for the record - I didn't swoop in here hoping to 'sell' a bunch of novel ideas that I came up with. I've silently been part of this group for a long, long time. None of the ideas or concepts I've presented are mine. They came from everyone here who has been actively talking (or arguing :-) about it. I'm just really good at taking all the ideas, and being able to 'see' how they can fit together most effectively. And I'm good at problem-solving. None of this stuff is mine, though - - everything in the structure I envision is comprised of pieces large and small that members have been suggesting and talking about for years. I just want to glue this thing together and see if we can't present Bob with something that will meet his objectives. That is the best chance for success. There would be nothing 'in it' for him to oppose a well constructed system of achieving his objectives for civility.
> The only informal civility buddy system that exists now are between two posters who work out an arrangement for themselves. There's no way of knowing how often it's used. I don't hear a lot of talk about it at all.
That's what I've gathered.. and I think participating in this kind of arrangement requires a level of sophistication in self-monitoring that doesn't come as easily to posters who are heating up as Bob expects. The posters I am really hoping to help are the 'frequent-fliers' of the current discipline system.
>
> Dr. Bob has *just* ok'd a concept where people would be available to answer civility questions, or in general be open to helping posters who ask to get comfortable with the civility guidelines or avoid blocks. It's a brand new idea, and I'm not sure what will happen with it. The only designation would be a list of people who are willing to do it.I think this concept is imbedded in the informal and formal Civility Buddy concepts. From my foxhole, I've seen a long history of evidence that the heartbeat of PsychoBabble is to be welcoming and helpful to newcomers and each other. Of course there are times when someone's vulnerability to irritation or anger results in them stepping out of line. But as a rule, that's not where the members' hearts are. The intent of their hearts is to respectfully co-exist. Sometimes a member will lose their way - but that's what this is about - a mechanism for them to find their way back.
>
> It's a far different thing to be involved with pairing up with a poster who would be blocked otherwise, even if they chose the civility buddy as the lesser of two evils.You are exactly right. Posters who tend to get blocked end up in that situation because for myriad reasons, they have trouble with their emotions heating up and getting away from them. When emotions are 'hot,' good judgment shuts down - which is why the expectation that they will be able to 'make better choices' on their own isn't realistic. If they could do that, they would.
Let me re-emphasize that it's definitely one thing for a poster to reach out to a friend to ask for or offer help. It is an entirely different thing to have a group of CB's who are volunteering to assist posters they may not have much of a relationship with.
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's a different level of commitment, and a different level of stress. If a poster felt willing to volunteer to do that, it'd be great. For myself, it would depend on my relationship with the poster. It's been my experience from previous suggestions from Dr. Bob along these lines that posters don't really appreciate the idea of having someone check their posts.Nobody will be checking anybody's posts, except when a a poster has (usually behind-the-scenes) asked someone to review their post. In the formal CB system, a 'bad' post has already been made. If the poster can live with the block - then all is well. If they want relief, then they have to reach out to a CB and say they want to repair. If they don't understand why their post got them blocked, the CB will dialogue with them - I'm guessing off-forum, and help them understand - questions and responses going back and forth between them. The CB can do what happens all the time here - offer alternative perceptions to the one the blocked poster held that turned up the heat on their emotions. If the incivil poster cannot figure out how to rephrase or apologize, the CB helps with that too. The CB is a guide - not an enforcer, and certainly not responsible for generating the blocked poster's willingness to repair. Once repair is made, the suspension is released. If the incivil poster is not able to sustain civility, that's where the cool-down phase comes in. It would not be the responsibility of a CB to 'make' an incivil poster get lined up with civility guidelines. The blocked poster has the possibility of getting unblocked, but it is up to them to access and cooperate with the system. If they won't or can't, then they are in effect justifying their block. CB's are not responsible for getting people out of trouble, or pleading with Bob for leniency, etc. An individual CB does not *have* to accept a blocked posters request for help. If past interractions are likely to be triggering for CB's, CB's first responsibility is to take care of their own well-being. They are volunteering the HELP - they are NOT volunteering to be argued with or verbally abused.
It's important to understand that this system is not designed to eliminate blocks! It is simply a mechanism for blocked posters who have the 'willingness' you've referred to before, to repair the breech and restore themselves - to learn from the lapse. What it has the opportunity to eliminate - are the blocks that take place for small steps over the line - especially those inadvertent ones that Bob has found incivil but few others 'see' it and the poster certainly didn't mean to be incivil. Maybe they just let their mouth run away with them. Or got silly and said "f*art" without the asterick." Maybe they misunderstood something and reacted too quickly. Currently, the swift (and exponential) blocks tend to push those folks past the point of no return. They probably wouldn't have gone there on their own - but a block, or the threat of a block was more than they were equipped to handle. Ron1953 (I think those numbers are right?) is a case in point. Toe moves over that mysterious line... then his emotions heat up in anticipation under the cloud of threat - and he goes from a 1 to a 10 on the incivility scale. There is a way to circumvent those things. I think Bob has tried to address it when he established the whole apology procedure. He warns of a block - then gives the poster time to repharase or apologize. It works a good part of the time. But there are posters with certain vulnerabilities that it will not work for... and their heated emotions are a huge obstacle.
So the civility guidelines stay the same. Bob can cite anything he deems uncivil as incivil. No one has to waste any time or energy trying to get him to see it differently. The poster has an avenue of relief that will get Bob what he wants, and will get that monkey off the poster's back, if they are willing to cooperate with the process. Not everyone will. And some may initially be so angry that they storm off. But when things cool down and their better judgment kicks back in.. they would now have a way to come back and say "ok, CB.. I need to fix this thing." It sort of takes out the punishment component. The consequence is still there - but it does not have to be 'punishment.'
> The resulting tension could be difficult.I think the CB concept needs a set of guidelines for how it will operate - what the expectations are. Everyone needs to know - forum-wide. This is what CB's can do: 1, 2, 3, 4.. This is what CB's will NOT need to concern themselves with: 1, 2, 3, 4.. And any CB subjected to abusive interraction can drop that poster like a hot potatoe to sit in the confines of their block. Some incivil posters might end up doing that.. but that is not the fault of the CB. CB's don't have to 'put up' with anything. Tney are not admninistrators, not police, not judges/juries, not responsible for Bob's civility guidelines in the first place, and are certainly not responsible for changing his mind about anything. Posters also need a set of guidelines for how the process will work - what they can expect - etc.
>
> But what I really want is to clarify to those considering volunteering that that would be an additional level of commitment they could volunteer for. This is a new concept, and I think it might deter volunteers if they were unsure of the level of responsibility that would be involved. At this point, volunteering would just mean being willing to help those who are unsure of the rules, or I statements, or Dr. Bob's requirements.yes - it is essential to eliminate uncertainty about expectations. There might need to be a "Babble Civility Management" section on the website with the guidelines and expectations posted.
>
> Anything to do with the council of elders would be separate entirely. That would be a different subset of posters, although I suppose the subsets could intersect.
That's exactly what i was thinking.
>
> Peacemakers don't *have* to be certified by Dr. Bob, or have any special title. Dr. Bob would prefer, from what I gather of his posts, that all posters be peacemakers.Of course.. but is that genuinely realistic? No. If everyone were a peacemaker, this support forum would have no reason to exist. It wouldn't exist, because no one would be here. And there will always be 'peacemakers' on the forum who are doing what comes naturally to them - but they haven't signed up to be CB's.
> Stepping into a current situation unasked is probably best done by those posters who believe they can help in that given situation.You're right. But that's how it takes place now anyway. Someone's heating up, and some peacemaker comes along to help diffuse things. They just do that naturally.
>And perhaps best not done by someone who has been appointed to do so, due to the resentment that can arise. Or at least that's been my experience.
I can see what you're talking about - and I think you're right about that. Maybe CB's won't be responsible for stepping in to diffuse situations.. that can take place like it takes place now. When it works - all is well. When it doesn't, there might be a blocked poster who needs a CB to help them get themselves out of hock.
>
> I know you've read the archives. Are you aware of the anger that can result from efforts to help? I suspect that anyone with formal standing may be seen as a tool of Dr. Bob.That's possible. Esepecially initially. However, for as long as someone who is blocked remains angry and contentious... they will not be ready to come back in. If they are blocked, they can't be incivil while they work thru their anger. Maybe they get help from their therapist - and then later come back and appropriately ask for help. No one is responsible for anyone else's anger. But CB's don't have to put up with abuse. Only blocked posters who want their services will get that help. No CB *has* to try to fix a situation a poster got themselves into and is not ready to fix.
>Any effort to get people to follow site guidelines can realistically be seen that way, no matter the intent of the helper. That might lessen the effectiveness of an intervention.
I may have not used the best word when I used 'intervene,' because you are right. CB's are certainly at liberty to offer help - but it really should be the blocked poster who initiates the process. It can't be forced. But it can be available.. and if Bob agrees with the concept that posters who can demonstrate reparation don't need to be blocked, then this system can provide for that. It's really just like you've been saying all along - right now there is not any provision for blocked posters who are willing to line up. Maybe this way, there can be.
>
> But perhaps my previous experience makes me overly cautious.No - your previous experience makes you wise and just the person to refine the ideas I'm proposing. You think of everything (obstacle) you can - and we'll figure it out. With your help, we may have all the bugs worked out from the get-go :-)
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 9:48:52
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 9:24:43
Posted by vwoolf on November 11, 2010, at 2:17:56
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
>
> Thanks for reframing (sorry, I couldn't resist) this discussion. Could you elaborate on how a block might define a poster?
>
> This reminds me of an idea we talked about when I was there, a new board that would focus on, to use your language above, learning about oneself from how one responds here. I like that idea very much. A lot of details would need to be worked out, but maybe it would make sense to start by trying to get an idea of how much interest there might be?I'm really busy trying to meet deadlines at the moment. I'll respond as soon as I have time.
Posted by Maxime on November 13, 2010, at 22:45:58
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 21:58:54
> No most just didn't like what they referred to as cliques and "fighting" for lack of better words not mine, and they just didn't like the atmosphere. Quite a few were fairly new posters. Phillipa
How many people are you talking about? 5? 10? 15? 20?
I still don't see how Facebook could replace PB unless of course a group was start on Facebook.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2010, at 16:42:27
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » ed_uk2010, posted by Maxime on November 7, 2010, at 21:30:37
> I'd be ok with combining Health and Social.
>
> Dinah> I think it's a good idea.
>
> ed_uk2010> I understand the problem of underpopulated boards, and threads that die after being redirected. But I am against moving health to social. For me, health can often be upsetting and I see social as a lighter, more friendly place, where more general matters are discussed. The mood of social is overall more relaxed-- even if people tell problems and issues of everyday or stresses of emotional things. Health can often be about very disturbing problems of another order entirely.
>
> Willful> I agree Ed.
>
> MaximeThanks for contributing your points of view. I've gone ahead and redirected Health to Social.
Bob
Posted by Phillipa on November 23, 2010, at 21:14:17
In reply to Re: redirecting Health to Social, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2010, at 16:42:27
Good decision hoping it works out well. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2010, at 4:15:27
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 18:26:02
> > > Mahatma Gandhi outlined several rules for civil resisters (or satyagrahi) in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire. For instance, they were to express no anger, never retaliate, submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities, surrender personal property when confiscated by the authorities but refuse to surrender property held in trust, refrain from swearing and insults (which are contrary to ahimsa), refrain from saluting the Union flag, and protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
> >
> > In the context of civil disobedience here:
> >
> > officials = me and deputies
> > insults and assaults = incivility
> > resisters = martyrs
>
> So, to me not all assaults are uncivil.
> Alot of what are being considered asaults are just discussion.
> Sometimes insults are just facts being pointed out.
> Sometimes resisters will choose to martyr themsleves, some times not.
> But resisters doesn't equal martyrs.
> If noone ever resisted, we women still wouldn't have a vote.
> If noone ever resisted, black people would still be treated as less than human. If noone resisted there would be no government policy changed for the better.
> etc.
> And I not trying to be disobedient here.
> I just want to effect change where I can.
> I have effected changes w/in the area I live.
> If people band together with a common goal policies can be changed.
> Its the squeaky wheel that gets oiled in this world.
> If everyone just sat at home and noone dared to speak up, this world would be a sorry place.
> I beleive that where I am in community, I have a voice, along with others in the community. Be it my municipality, school district, church etc."Martyrs" was from an exchange with Alex, and the equivalencies were from the context of civil disobedience.
IMO, the issue is how to effect change effectively. Civil disobedience can be effective at effecting change. Uncivil disobedience is ineffective at effecting change, at least here.
> I want to be involved here, but over the years I have concluded that I can't work w/Bob cuz he doesn't seem to work with others well. His communication skills, which are uber important in this scenario, seem to be lacking.
> I can't work w/someone who is a rougue and doesn't work WITH the group.
>
> Definition of ROGUE
> 1: resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable <capsized by a rogue wave>I'm isolated, aberrant, uncontrollable, and perceived by some to be dangerous -- because I'm the administrator. A rogue poster is more like a rogue elephant than I am.
> If Bob could change his spots, I'd run w/him, but I have yet to see any real change in his overall behaviours.
> he has 'seemed' to work w/us before.
> Is this just the same thing? I don't know.
> So, ya, I have eternal faith in miracles, but alot of doubt about Bob's abilities to carry these ideas through.
> Not that Bob is bad. Bob is Bob. I even kinda like him to some extent. But I Can't abide his managment of this place.
> I still want to dream tho....4 of the ideas listed before would be up to me to carry through.
4 would be up to posters to carry through.
5 would be up to me or posters to carry through.I still want to dream, too.
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 27, 2010, at 15:23:21
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2010, at 4:15:27
> 4 of the ideas listed before would be up to me to carry through.
> 4 would be up to posters to carry through.
> 5 would be up to me or posters to carry through.
>
> I still want to dream, too.
>
> Bob
Bob.. the post within which you wrote what's above did not include ideas which you reference here. I'm not sure I understand why you left specifics out, but it would be helpful to all of us if you would list the 13 specific ideas you're referring to, and which category you put them in.Thanks..
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 0:01:08
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 27, 2010, at 15:23:21
> > 4 of the ideas listed before would be up to me to carry through.
> > 4 would be up to posters to carry through.
> > 5 would be up to me or posters to carry through.
>
> it would be helpful to all of us if you would list the 13 specific ideas you're referring to, and which category you put them in.Scroll up:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968845.html
Bob
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.