![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 82 to 106 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 18:27:04
In reply to Re: Amnesty, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 16:26:56
First.. I want to thank you for your input..
> > if wholesale release isn't the best idea, then maybe reducing everyone's block to 10% of its original length or something similar would provide for a more gradual influx.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> First, I thought it was interesting that "wholesale" would be 5 posters:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969738.html
I haven't really been clear on how many are currently blocked.. but I don't know that it's as much about the number of posters currently blocked. I think it might be more about it being a clear administrative gesture of good-will on your part. Symbolic, maybe.. of a number of things. for example, blocking, block length, and blocking formula have been at the hcore of the community's loss of heart. Amnesty might represent a significant move on your part.. demonstrating a tangible hope that you will put your finger on the pulse here and genuinely listen to the community.
> My proposal was 50%:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
>
> There hasn't exactly been a groundswell of interest, so let's focus on other ideas that are on the table right now.groundswell of interest in amnesty? I don't know how much it has to be to count, but it seemed to me that amnesty, along with reduction in length of blocking have been at the forefront.
Regardless.. I'm all for focusing on whatever issues are of interest to you. Where would you like to start?
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 18:38:04
In reply to Re: Delayed posting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 16:56:04
I love this idea. I know there have been times in my life when I could have used an email delay feature :-)
A mandatory delay could Really be a benefit to those who struggle with impulse control.. as well as anyone whose emotions are over-heated and they feel compelled to send that angry post. Maybe some posters would even want to opt for delayed posting as a profile feature (similar to opting out of facebook)... it could work on all their posts for whatever period of time they think they need that pause.
Solstice
> > I wrote a post making explicit profane threats against everybody that would have gotten me blocked for a century if I had posted it. Thankfully I waited a few hours till I cooled down before deciding whether to send it or not.
> >
> > I bet half of the people who got blocked, if they had a few hours to think about it wouldn't have written what they did.
> >
> > hyperfocus
>
> > I wonder if it could be selectively enacted as part of the early block reduction?
> >
> > People might be more willing to have a delay than they would to have someone assigned to review their posts.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Thanks, I think this is an interesting idea. Of course, as you've both demonstrated, posters can already choose to delay posting. And if they don't, but come to regret that, they can apologize.
>
> But as Dinah suggests, a mandatory posting delay might be a nice alternative to a mandatory civility buddy (or a block).
>
> > this wouldn't be trivial to implement because it's extra work to write a batch job that runs every hour or whatever to scoop up posts in the queue
> >
> > hyperfocus
>
> An easier way to implement it might be to not making delayed posting automatic, but to require the poster to return to the site to re-confirm it after the specified delay.
>
> Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 19:18:29
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 17:50:08
> My guess is members of some kind of Elders Council would be less likely to be seen as my "minions".
I think any member, or group of members, that serves in any capacity of oversight of compliance with civility guidelines risks being seen as one of your 'minions.'
> > SOME discussion, even a litle heated discussion can be VERY useful. But with Bobs rules there is a tendency to keep everything surface and so-called 'safe'. There's no depth really.
> > Heated discussions can be stressful, and hurtful if it goes too far, but they can also be super helpful.
> > Heated discussions in a group of people in which the core group trust each other can be so fruitful, and when the dust settles, and sorrys are said, the bonds are stronger. I want to be able to be 'real', not just surface.
> >
> > muffled
>
> The key is trust. Will there be trust if posters are uncivil to each other and let each other be slapped upside the head?I think 'heated discussions' is not well-defined. If we take what Muff is describing - and require it to remain respectful - maybe it could be called 'vigorous disscussions'? I think Muff makes a good point.. that members having enough latitude to express strongly opposing views can be enriching. But I also think the line can get fuzzy between respectful debate, and disrespect, which is never helpful. It does take a lot of practice to be able to engage in vigorous discussions and not cross the line into disrespect.
I can't help but wonder if this is really about the current threshhold for incivility? Quite frequently, posts that are cited with PBC's, etc. do not register with the membership as uncivil. A good number of times, a PBC or block has been issued, and the member who was the presumed victim did not perceive the post as hurtful, disrespectful, or uncivil. This extraordinarily low threshhold has led to a good bit of outrage. It is a factor in the members' feeling of PBC's and blocks being arbitrary. It has also served to suck the 'life' out of the forum overall. Scott very capably addressed this in one of his posts to his thread "This place is dying." Just something to consider..
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 21:25:57
In reply to Re: turn around times » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 12, 2010, at 21:41:25
> That makes [five] of us to start with.
>
> 10derheart, Deneb, Partlycloudy, Gardenergirl, ... and Dinah
>
> I'll compile the list and ask Dr. Bob to include it in the FAQ.
>
> DinahWhat a great start, good work! How's this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
> The idea of a 'civility tree', similar to the telephone 'snow trees' we used in RI sounds good.
>
> fbWould it help if you guys had a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 22:00:09
In reply to Re: And how about volunteer civility buddies?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2010, at 1:57:49
> Maybe there can be a process where a member cited for incivility chooses i) get a Civility Buddy to walk them through the process of repairing the incivility and making it 'right'; or ii)default to however Bob wants to handle their incivility. This puts the power in the hands of the infractor. Maybe it can be set up for a temporary suspension of posting privileges by CB's until the infractor decides which route to take - and release of of the suspension is contingent on the infractor's cooperation with their Civility Buddy. There are a multitude of ways a Civility Buddy system can work when a potential block is being handled.
>
> Solstice> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Solstice> 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.
>
> Dinah> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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> 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.
>
> alexandra_k> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Solstice> The only informal civility buddy system that exists now are between two posters who work out an arrangement for themselves.
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Dinah> > 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
>
> 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?
>
> Dinah> 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.
>
> 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.'
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I may have not used the best word when I used 'intervene' ... 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.
>
> Solstice> You do have good ideas, Solstice
>
> Dinah> Posters who got blocked might not agree that their post was incivil. They may think the block is unfair. But if they want the block lifted, they will have to cooperate with a CB who can help them figure out how to think and feel about what happened in a way that helps themn stay within the guidelines and make repair - even if they don't feel like what they said did any harm. ... We have to defer to Bob's civility guidelines because it is his site. Someone has to set the standard. He gets to make the rules for the 'world' he created. A Babbler that's been blocked is a little like that 'disruptive part' you mentioned. They are told to take a back seat. Then a Civility Buddy can 'sit down with them' and try to help them figure it out.
>
> There is just no way to avoid the reality that we have a Leader who has some authority that no one else can have. It's the only way for a group to survive and thrive.
>
> I think trust will build over time if the system works. Bob won't look like such a 'bad guy' because blocked members would have the ability to get themselves out of trouble. Not by duking it out with him over the merits of the block, but by putting themselves into the CB process to make reparations.
>
> Solstice--
Is this idea like the "mandatory civility buddies" we've discussed before?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
To recap, that idea was that as an alternative to being blocked, a poster could choose to have their posts go through (be approved by) someone else before being posted.
It would be mandatory in that their posts would have to go through someone else. It wouldn't be mandatory in that they wouldn't have to choose that alternative, they could just be blocked (for not as long). Both the mandatory civility buddies and the "voluntary civility buddies" also being discussed now:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969367.html
would be volunteers.
And both would review posts. That's where I wonder if these ideas diverge. Would these "formal civility buddies" not review posts and have the power to lift blocks? If so, then IMO this is more like some kind of Elders Council:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969323.html
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on November 28, 2010, at 22:17:28
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 21:25:57
I doubt it'll be necessary.
I might recommend waiting a while to see how this plays out before doing things like mailing lists.
But I'm neutral if you and others wish to set it up anyway. I was just thinking your time for Babble is at a premium and this doesn't seem like something that would be up there on the list....
Posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 22:58:57
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 22:00:09
> Is this idea like the "mandatory civility buddies" we've discussed before?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.html
>
> To recap, that idea was that as an alternative to being blocked, a poster could choose to have their posts go through (be approved by) someone else before being posted.
>
> It would be mandatory in that their posts would have to go through someone else. It wouldn't be mandatory in that they wouldn't have to choose that alternative, they could just be blocked (for not as long). Both the mandatory civility buddies and the "voluntary civility buddies" also being discussed now:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969367.html
>
> would be volunteers.
>
> And both would review posts. That's where I wonder if these ideas diverge. Would these "formal civility buddies" not review posts and have the power to lift blocks? If so, then IMO this is more like some kind of Elders Council:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969323.html
It might be a variation of all three. What I had in mind was a formalization of the CB system that has been working behind the scenes. First, making it public like Dinah has suggested, so that everyone knows where to find one. Second, it would be similar to your description of 'Mandatory Civility Buddies,' but I'm not crazy about the potential associations around the word 'Mandatory.' I currently (it has evolved) visualize the role being one where people can use CB's to help them if they see the need. Otherwise, they would be available to posters who got themselves blocked. Iwas imagining blocks as being a suspension of posting privileges that only you would do. The blocked poster would have the option of getting help from a CB who could: i)help blocked poster understand why/how their post crossed the line; ii) help them formulate the apologies/restating to repair the incivility (which includes review); iii) when CB is satisfied blocked poster's proposed post is sufficient, CB forwards that post to admin. along with a recommendation that suspended posting privileges are restored. I don't think of it as 'Mandatory,' because it is truly optional. Some posters might be too angry to use it right away, but maybe after they cool down they will want to access a CB. I think that CB's as a rule would probably be better off NOT having the power to unblock. However, because of your periodic absences, will probably be necessary for a Sr. CB, or some kind of administrative deputy to have the power to release blocks when you aren't around. Posters who are restored are good-to-go, and of course any member who feels themselves escalating would be wise to use CB's BEFORE they get themselves blocked.The whole purpose is to have a way for posters to get relief from blocks, without compromising your civility guidelines, and it encourages the use of CB's, which may help those who are 'frequent-fliers' of the block system learn how to manage their civility.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 23:55:30
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
> As already suggested, the Elder's Council could serve to work with Dr. Bob on determining whether a member really has been incivil, developing a more consistent and predictable application of blocks for those who opt out of the CB route, and fill in for Bob when he is absent or unavailable.
>
> Solstice> 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.
>
> Free> They would cover for Bob when he gone.
> And ultimately then maybe this site would become more 'ours', and not so much just 'His'.
>
> muffled> Deputies covered for Bob when he was gone, and consulted among themselves for a consensus.
>
> I don't recall posters feeling any better about actions.
>
> I may be cynical, but I can't see people welcoming pbc's or blocks from anyone. Conversely I can't see all posters welcoming a lack of pbc's or blocks either. People tend to feel differently when they feel attacked.
>
> But I don't believe the site would be better served by Dr. Bob giving over his power to a group. There would just be different problems.
>
> I am members of sites that are entirely group led. There are still splinter factions, huge blowouts and dissolvings of the group.
>
> This isn't utopia.
>
> Dinah> I think that his ownership of the site is something that we all have to figure out a way to be okay with. In many ways, it is "our" site because without us, it would not exist. But when it comes to final decisions, those things will always belong to Bob. Just as surely as he created the site, he alone has the power to dismantle it.
>
> SolsticeThe way I'm thinking of this, the primary task of the council would be to decide whether and when to lift blocks. I'd still determine whether posters were civil, and deputies would still fill in for me when I'm unavailable.
--
> A council member should possess objectivity and humility, without any vested interests in the outcome of a given conflict.
>
> Free> If this is implemented, I think it would be important to have some criteria for parole. Leaving it entirely to the choice of the parole board, so to speak, might lead to conscious or unconscious favoring of the popular, or confusion and distrust by posters.
>
> The criteria could be developed by you, or by the council, or through discussion and at least partial consensus on the administration board.
>
> But transparency has always been a value on Babble, and I think it's a value that should continue in any implementation of parole. People should be able to understand if they might meet criteria before they apply, and why they were rejected if they were rejected. People should be able to understand the process, and the likely result, IMO.
>
> Otherwise it would lead to more confusion and anger than exist with civility guidelines. And the council might be faced with even more anger than in my opinion is already unfortunately likely.
>
> As I stated before, I'd suggest linking parole to a willingness to abide by site guidelines upon return. The first time could be based entirely on the word of the person asking for it. The next time and subsequent times could ask for more assurances than that, if the word has proven to be insufficient. There could be a fair amount of judgment on the parole board's part on what that might be. But I think the basic framework should be easily understandable by all.
>
> That's just my suggestion. I'm sure others would have other suggestions.
>
> DinahMy inclination is to leave the criteria to the council. That empowers them more and makes them less likely to be seen as my minions.
It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
> I see it as more likely that the council would either have to allow everything to retain the good feelings of the more outspoken posters, or would grow to receive the same feelings Bob receives. In my experience, posters are less able to tolerate rage than Dr. Bob is. I think part of the secret of Babble's longevity is Bob's ability to be a container for rage.
>
> DinahLike deputies, council members should probably also be able to stay cool -- and to take some heat. They may not feel it's necessary to retain the good feelings of all posters. If they're elected and not seen as my minions, they may not receive as much rage.
> to those who post here, it is 'home', and that is a HUGE thing. People should have some degree of safety and autonomy in their own 'home'. Then they can feel more able to more fully share etc.
>
> A council could override Bob(an effective council would).
> The balance of power would shift.
> I would have more trust(over time anyways) that a broader group of people might better have the interests of the 'present' community at heart.
> I think it might be a challenge for the elders council at times....but it could possibly work.
> The ONLY way I would be interested in being a part of all this would be if Bob was willing to relinquish some of his control.
>
> muffled> > What if the council had the power to lift blocks?
>
> Now this I like.
> Anyhow, this sounds more like Bob would be willing to let go some?????
> Is this what you mean Bob? that you would be willing to let go some? Or would you still barge in higglety pigglety(or willy nilly...;-/ ) and start throwing your weight around?
> Or would you be willing to work THRU the board?????
>
> muffledI'd see it as letting go some. But not as working through the council. The deputies and me would still determine whether posters were civil.
> If Bob is really serious about setting up a Council of Wise Elders or a Parole Board or whatever -
>
> My final vote would be for...
>
> Free--
Thanks, everyone, for your input. Here's a proposal:
Candidates need to have been registered for 1 year and to have posted 300 times to be eligible. They need to get 5 "signatures" to be nominated. Posters can sign more than 1 "nomination petition". Candidates can sign their own petitions. Candidates nominated by others can decline to "run".
There's 1 month to nominate candidates, then 1 month to vote. Each poster gets 1 vote. The 5 candidates with the most votes are elected. Their term is 1 year.
The council gets a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board.
The council chooses one of themselves to interface with me.
The primary task of the council is to decide whether and when to lift blocks. There's a minimum period during which blocks can't be lifted. Blocks can be lifted unconditionally or with conditions like a voluntary civility buddy, a mandatory civility buddy, or delayed posting.
It's up to blocked posters to involve the council or not. They can communicate with the council off-board if they want.
The council decides by voting. The quorum is 3 members voting or abstaining. A majority (of those voting) determines the decision.
For the sake of transparency, the council posts its decisions and how each member votes.
A secondary task of the council is to serve as a resource for me.
How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 0:40:21
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on November 28, 2010, at 22:17:28
I agree with 10der that no list would be necessary as it stands right now. Someone could contact anyone on the list, and if that person isn't available, they could suggest that another civility buddy be contacted.
Since it's entirely voluntary, and posters would likely want to contact those buddies they feel most comfortable with, I don't think anything more formal is needed.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 29, 2010, at 2:44:46
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 22:58:57
Solstice and all,
When one is given the option of working with a civility buddy or choosing a block, what would the civility option called. I agree mandatory is not the right word, esp because it's offered as a choice.
Assigned buddy isn't right, formal buddy, maybe. I guess to choose to work with a
buddy of one's choice.To me, this seems like an improvement....
Even though I am not closely following and am officially on leave :)(I am still subscribed to this thread.)
And is there a prescribed length of time?
If this procedure comes into practice, I would consider working on this basis, that is, with one person rather than being on call.
With appreciation for those who care enough to carry this thread along,
fb
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 3:10:25
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Solstice, posted by floatingbridge on November 29, 2010, at 2:44:46
my memory might fail me but issues that came up last time that seemed to result in this idea not being carried into fruition include:
1) if one is a civility buddy for a poster then does one need to commit to screening their posts... hourly? daily? weekly? just how many posts are we talking about here?
2) what if one thinks the posts are okay and then the poster gets pbc'd and / or blocked for something the buddy thought was okay?
i'm pretty sure Bob likes this one (posters doing something him staying the same). i think it was posters who were reluctant...
but maybe this got sorted. dunno.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:20:35
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Solstice on November 28, 2010, at 22:58:57
> It might be a variation of all three.
In that case, could I ask you to incorporate your suggestions into those three proposals?
mandatory civility buddies
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/597469.htmlvoluntary civility buddies
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971697.htmlsome kind of Elders Council
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.htmlI think that will help us move forward together. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:22:03
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 0:40:21
> I agree with 10der that no list would be necessary as it stands right now.
OK, keep up the good work and let me know if there's anything else I can do.
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 7:27:36
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 23:55:30
I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).I think Bob's proposal has the potential to address all of the members' concerns. The proposal leans quite a bit in favor of the members. I think this proposal clearly demonstrates that Bob is willing to trust the collective wisdom of the board.
Solstice
> Thanks, everyone, for your input. Here's a proposal:
>
> Candidates need to have been registered for 1 year and to have posted 300 times to be eligible. They need to get 5 "signatures" to be nominated. Posters can sign more than 1 "nomination petition". Candidates can sign their own petitions. Candidates nominated by others can decline to "run".
>
> There's 1 month to nominate candidates, then 1 month to vote. Each poster gets 1 vote. The 5 candidates with the most votes are elected. Their term is 1 year.
>
> The council gets a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board.
>
> The council chooses one of themselves to interface with me.
>
> The primary task of the council is to decide whether and when to lift blocks. There's a minimum period during which blocks can't be lifted. Blocks can be lifted unconditionally or with conditions like a voluntary civility buddy, a mandatory civility buddy, or delayed posting.
>
> It's up to blocked posters to involve the council or not. They can communicate with the council off-board if they want.
>
> The council decides by voting. The quorum is 3 members voting or abstaining. A majority (of those voting) determines the decision.
>
> For the sake of transparency, the council posts its decisions and how each member votes.
>
> A secondary task of the council is to serve as a resource for me.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Bob
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:04:29
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:20:35
If the role expands beyond what it is now, I think you should find someone else to head it up.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 7:27:36
> I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
Thanks. My thinking about that was:
> > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 8:45:46
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:04:29
> If the role expands beyond what it is now, I think you should find someone else to head it up.
>
(((Dinah)))
Glad you watching out for yourself.
It seems to be evolving....again.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
That would make the Elders politicians...
I find the idea of being a politician abhorrent to me personally. I've never ran for anything in my life and am happy to have it remain so.
But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate 10derheart, gardenergirl, partlycloudy, racer, twinleaf, and toph. Off the top of my head.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:52:02
In reply to Re: formal civility buddies » Dinah, posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 8:45:46
If that's true, then I should resign.
I'd have to already have a good relationship with someone if I were to be a formal civility buddy. It seems a relationship fraught with possibilities of a faceful of cat.
Posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 9:21:27
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 8:26:07
> > I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
>
> Thanks. My thinking about that was:
>
> > > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
>
> Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
>Hmmm.. let's explore this. I read Dinah's concerns. She would be at the top of everybody's list for Council.. so her reaction of 'running' being abhorent can't be ignored. On further reflection, her reaction may very well be rooted in her instinctive wisdom. Holding elections does make Council more representative of the community, especially with 1 yr. terms. I think, though, that it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate. That may be where it becomes a problem here. Maybe we could consider doing it as more of an inverse 'Supreme Court' process where forum members nominate Council Members, and you as administrator confirms them? (at least those who agree to serve). That way, the nominated members are not 'running' per se... yet since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. It will minimize the 'popularity' and competitive aspects of politics that might be troublesome here. And to add another comment regarding the Bob's Minon's factor: I think the power they have over block length decisions is what defines them as NOT your minions, regardless of how they got into that position. Does that seem like a workable way of doing it?
Solstice
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 9:35:29
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 29, 2010, at 9:21:27
> > > I love this (maybe with the exception of posting individual council members' votes).
> >
> > Thanks. My thinking about that was:
> >
> > > > It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
> >
> > Knowing how current members voted might help posters decide whether to re-elect them.
> >
>
> Hmmm.. let's explore this. I read Dinah's concerns. She would be at the top of everybody's list for Council.. so her reaction of 'running' being abhorent can't be ignored. On further reflection, her reaction may very well be rooted in her instinctive wisdom. Holding elections does make Council more representative of the community, especially with 1 yr. terms. I think, though, that it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate. That may be where it becomes a problem here. Maybe we could consider doing it as more of an inverse 'Supreme Court' process where forum members nominate Council Members, and you as administrator confirms them? (at least those who agree to serve). That way, the nominated members are not 'running' per se... yet since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. It will minimize the 'popularity' and competitive aspects of politics that might be troublesome here. And to add another comment regarding the Bob's Minon's factor: I think the power they have over block length decisions is what defines them as NOT your minions, regardless of how they got into that position. Does that seem like a workable way of doing it?
>
> Solstice
>
>*I also think anyone that runs, needs to be cognizant of the change in stature. The deps were often treated 'differently'. So there is a loss. :(
Also, they need to know that Bob can be very present, but that he also has a tendency to *dissapear* at times.
They also need to know that in 'working WITH' him....is really not. Cuz Bob is NOT a great communicator, and he also doesn't seem to take terribly seriously others peoples suggestions regarding this site.
All these things have proven to be so in the past.
I guess what I am saying is that people should be aware of what they are getting into.....
BTW I am NOT saying Bob is some horrible person. If I thot he was, I wouldn't keep (occasionally) trying here.
But I gotta say, at this point in his life journey anyways, I absolutely would NOT be able to work "with" him, cuz he is a maverick still.
I think there is within him a desire....but he is SO not there yet...he is still a maverick bull crashing around and hurting things, and not knowing why.
:(
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:02:21
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
And Scott, of course.
I'm sure I've forgotten some other names.
Posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:13
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 17:50:08
> I've always been ambivalent about the deputy role because of that. Maybe it would be cleaner to require deputies to give up the poster role.
If this is your decision, you should update the FAQ.
Posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:15
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:22:03
>>keep up the good work..
I'm not doing any work. No one has ever asked me to, if you are talking about civility buddies. Maybe a friend, informally, but usually after they posted, and they really already *knew* their post was civil, but were just a little worried about misinterpretation. Otherwise, my past offers to those receiving a PBC and/or having trouble with being blocked previously were 100% rejected.
Thanks for the thanks but I don't really understand...
Posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:24:40
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 8:49:17
> But if they have any interest in running for office, I'd nominate 10derheart,.....
Thanks but no thanks. Never, ever. I'll post my questions/thoughts to Dr. Bob later if I can. As you might guess, I have strong feelings about "elections" on Babble.
I am not even feeling okay about the (slim, IMO) possibility of being asked to act as a civility buddy any more. Not if it goes beyond, quiet, private, informal help. I am feeling very uncomfortable in general.
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.