![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 267 to 291 of 348. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 3:01:33
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 27, 2010, at 4:15:27
> Uncivil disobedience is ineffective at effecting change, at least here.
Civil obedience seems to fare similarly.
> I'm isolated, aberrant, uncontrollable, and perceived by some to be dangerous -- because I'm the administrator.
Ah yes, blame the role. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the PARTICULAR way in which YOU go about things.
> A rogue poster is more like a rogue elephant than I am.
In your opinion.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:25:04
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 3:01:33
> > I'm isolated, aberrant, uncontrollable, and perceived by some to be dangerous -- because I'm the administrator.
>
> Ah yes, blame the role. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the PARTICULAR way in which YOU go about things.Well, I guess that's possible, too.
Bob
Posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 12:51:58
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2010, at 3:25:04
> > > I'm isolated, aberrant, uncontrollable, and perceived by some to be dangerous -- because I'm the administrator.
> >
> > Ah yes, blame the role. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the PARTICULAR way in which YOU go about things.
>
> Well, I guess that's possible, too.
>
> Bob* I guess...
Anyhow, I don't think you horrible Bob :(
"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."I think I meant in the context that when you away awhile and then you come in slapping blocks around.
Posters going off is usu in context of an ongoing interaction, so its not necc unexpected.
Also, we get a chance to know posters and their habits, so when they do occasionally go off, well then we just know thats what they do, cuz they been hurt, and we just adapt.
See eg, at a place where I post, there is one very hurt poster, and she goes off from time to time, but we know her, and know of her hurt. And over time she has come to trust that we will NOT run away when she goes off. So she has been able to open up more, which scares her, she goes off some, we say its ok, we still here, we understand, and she chills.
She does NOT get rejected. She has only been (I think, it must be done via email) blocked(or maybe she just chooses to stay away?) when her behaviour has been very very harsh.
But see, this is what can happen when you develop a community that gets to know each other, and trust each other more. Real healing can take place. But we have to be able to allow for differences in people.
I spose bob will just say, well, then don't come here...:(
But I think for many of us, 'in the old days', the sense of community was what made this place so special....
but its gone now.
Bob broke trust.
I dunno how you can get it back bob?
But I will say that the long blocks are felt be so many to be wrong, why do you not see that????
Why do you not see that *timely* warnings would be appropriate, not ancient ones.
I know many seem content with the status quo, but I also know that many have left :(
I know that babble is still NOT the same caring place it was.
I dunno how to get that back.
I just dunno.
But I miss those days :(
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 0:11:53
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 12:51:58
> But I will say that the long blocks are felt be so many to be wrong, why do you not see that????
I think he might. I think that's why he has proposed setting up a Council of Commuity posters that can shorten blocks. But he can't set it up unless there are at least five people here who are willing to serve and the Community is willing to support them as they forge that new ground. I hope it happens.
Solstice
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 0:56:42
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 0:11:53
> > But I will say that the long blocks are felt be so many to be wrong, why do you not see that????
>
> I think he might. I think that's why he has proposed setting up a Council of Commuity posters that can shorten blocks. But he can't set it up unless there are at least five people here who are willing to serve and the Community is willing to support them as they forge that new ground. I hope it happens.
>
> Solstice*hmmmm, I have yet to see any real sign that he has changed his spots.....
He has 'appeared' to B4......
Nope, I remain quite unconvinced that those spots have changed much at all...
And for me....'shorten' doesn't cut it.....
WTF does shorten mean?...?...?....
"only" 3 wks vs 3 months???....still much too long IMHO...
Maybe some will stand up...but not me....I still don't trust the old bobmeister....
we just don't see eye to eye attall.
I feel like his mother.
I have an odd affection towards this wayward child of mine.....but I sure do not understand him, and he is an adult, so i can't tell him what to do, but he is still like a teen and he still doesn't listen to his ol ma....
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 8:01:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 0:56:42
> > I think he might. I think that's why he has proposed setting up a Council of Commuity posters that can shorten blocks. But he can't set it up unless there are at least five people here who are willing to serve and the Community is willing to support them as they forge that new ground. I hope it happens.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> *hmmmm, I have yet to see any real sign that he has changed his spots.....
> He has 'appeared' to B4......
> Nope, I remain quite unconvinced that those spots have changed much at all...
> And for me....'shorten' doesn't cut it.....
> WTF does shorten mean?...?...?....
> "only" 3 wks vs 3 months???....still much too long IMHO...
I understand that if you're the one being blocked.. then 3 weeks is too long.. but in the big scheme of things, I don't think you'd be happy with no moderation here. Really.I'm wondering if you might respond "Well of course I want moderation - - just not so MUCH moderation." And that's where 3 weeks vs 3 months becomes significant. 3 weeks IS 'some.' It's not 'so much' like 3 months is 'so much.'
I think there's a pendulum effect from the unbelievably long blocks.
Sol.
Posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 10:43:45
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » muffled, posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 8:01:51
> > > I think he might. I think that's why he has proposed setting up a Council of Commuity posters that can shorten blocks. But he can't set it up unless there are at least five people here who are willing to serve and the Community is willing to support them as they forge that new ground. I hope it happens.
> > >
> > > Solstice
> >
> > *hmmmm, I have yet to see any real sign that he has changed his spots.....
> > He has 'appeared' to B4......
> > Nope, I remain quite unconvinced that those spots have changed much at all...
> > And for me....'shorten' doesn't cut it.....
> > WTF does shorten mean?...?...?....
> > "only" 3 wks vs 3 months???....still much too long IMHO...
>
>
> I understand that if you're the one being blocked.. then 3 weeks is too long.. but in the big scheme of things, I don't think you'd be happy with no moderation here. Really.
>
> I'm wondering if you might respond "Well of course I want moderation - - just not so MUCH moderation." And that's where 3 weeks vs 3 months becomes significant. 3 weeks IS 'some.' It's not 'so much' like 3 months is 'so much.'
>
> I think there's a pendulum effect from the unbelievably long blocks.
>
> Sol.For me, I question exactly what the blocks accomplish.
I agree, short ones to give a person time to chill and rethink, and to give other posters a chance to see and post supportively(there can be a time lag)and try and help.
Yes, sometimes a block is needed.
But sometimes it is not.
And like I say, I don't think long blocks serve any purpose other than being punitive.
But I guess thats just my thots, cuz I don't truly understand people...
At some point, I may change my mind and choose to help.
But not yet.
Posted by Solstice on December 4, 2010, at 19:06:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on December 4, 2010, at 10:43:45
> For me, I question exactly what the blocks accomplish.
> I agree, short ones to give a person time to chill and rethink, and to give other posters a chance to see and post supportively(there can be a time lag)and try and help.
> Yes, sometimes a block is needed.
> But sometimes it is not.
> And like I say, I don't think long blocks serve any purpose other than being punitive.You hit that nail right on the head there. The long blocks ARE punitive. And I personally don't see them serving any constructive purpose. Very short blocks that are applied quickly are more likely (I believe) to serve Bob's stated purposes.
> But I guess thats just my thots, cuz I don't truly understand people...You may understand more than you give yourself credit for...
Sol.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by muffled on December 2, 2010, at 12:51:58
> See eg, at a place where I post, there is one very hurt poster, and she goes off from time to time, but we know her, and know of her hurt. And over time she has come to trust that we will NOT run away when she goes off. So she has been able to open up more, which scares her, she goes off some, we say its ok, we still here, we understand, and she chills.
I'm glad she has that place. I don't know if that's realistic for this place. For example, new people wouldn't know her or of her hurt and might run away.
> Why do you not see that *timely* warnings would be appropriate
I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:19:06
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
> I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
>
> BobIt would depend on the individual as to which they would prefer, fellow posters or Administration. I don't think blanket assumptions can be made either way.
I'm not sure that it's unrealistic to expect a timely response from a board's administration. It is sometimes pragmatic to recognize that such expectations may not be met, and that poster intervention is more likely to be timely.
Unfortunately poster warnings are about as useful as your warnings would be if you didn't block. I can warn till I'm blue in the face. I don't have any power to do anything more than talk. Posters haven't got the power. Only you and Racer do.
Sometimes the time lag before someone with the power to intervene shows up is longer than I can tolerate. That's my issue, I suppose. But I have limited ways to resolve it.
Posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:24:56
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 2:24:39
> I'm not here all the time. Posters are. From whom is it more realistic to expect timely warnings? From whom might people prefer to receive warnings?
Moreover, posters post here in the belief that it is a moderated board. Many people come here to have supportive and educational discussions about medication, therapy, and other mental health related issues. Many people prefer not to be involved in conflict. I think it's a reasonable expectation to believe that Administration will handle the conflict so that posters can be involved in the stated purpose of the site. At one time, I think you wrote something along those lines. The best of both worlds?
I think I agreed with you then.
So what is it now, if not the best of both worlds?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 16:25:30
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dinah on December 5, 2010, at 11:24:56
> Unfortunately poster warnings are about as useful as your warnings would be if you didn't block. I can warn till I'm blue in the face. I don't have any power to do anything more than talk. Posters haven't got the power.
Friends don't have the power to compel, but they may not be as powerless as they feel.
> Moreover, posters post here in the belief that it is a moderated board. Many people come here to have supportive and educational discussions about medication, therapy, and other mental health related issues. Many people prefer not to be involved in conflict. I think it's a reasonable expectation to believe that Administration will handle the conflict so that posters can be involved in the stated purpose of the site. At one time, I think you wrote something along those lines.
It's still reasonable, and IMO simpler, to allow the administration to moderate. But maybe Babble's growing up and ready to take more responsibility for itself.
Bob
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:51:36
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2010, at 16:25:30
>But maybe Babble's growing up and ready to take more responsibility for itself.
Oh Bob. Babble grew up years ago and is now very old and tired.
Posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 23:11:14
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by sigismund on December 5, 2010, at 22:51:36
Now the Captain called me to his bed
He fumbled for my hand
"Take these silver bars," he said
"I'm giving you command."
"Command of what, there's no one here
There's only you and me --
All the rest are dead or in retreat
Or with the enemy."
"Complain, complain, that's all you've done
Ever since we lost
If it's not the Crucifixion
Then it's the Holocaust."
"May Christ have mercy on your soul
For making such a joke
Amid these hearts that burn like coal
And the flesh that rose like smoke."
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.