![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 109 to 133 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
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 ... gardenergirl.Thanks for the consideration, but I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
gg
Posted by Deneb on November 29, 2010, at 17:14:33
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
This sounds way complicated. LOL I hate politics. I say we use a random number generator to determine what happens to blocked posters. How about the closing numbers in the stock market?
Something like...
If the last digit of the closing number is 0, then there is no change in the block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 1, then there is an 20% reduction in block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 2, then there is a 40% reduction in block.
If the last digit of the closing number is 3, then there is a 60% reduction in block.etc. LOL
I dunno lol, this random thing sounds like much less work and if people get angry about their lack of block reduction they can blame the fates. LOL
Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 18:11:08
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Deneb on November 29, 2010, at 17:14:33
I thought that Bob was really keen for there to be an election of deputies. Only... He didn't get enough people volunteering to be part of the election who he wanted to consider.
The wheels are turning.
Don't worry Dinah, you know what he is like. Lots of non-committal phrases to keep the discussion going, support for something that requires posters to do something that they simply will not do, the odd change (which can be unchanged if people persist for long enough and threaten to leave / leave for a while). He ain't changing anytime soon.
For better. And worse, I suppose. There is always that.
Posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 19:04:05
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 18:11:08
That people are watching out for themselves.
I hate to see people get hurt.
Posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 20:03:39
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 16:35:56
Certainly, though, I wish well for anyone who would choose to run for a position.
gg
Posted by Solstice on November 30, 2010, at 1:11:34
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by muffled on November 29, 2010, at 9:35:29
> *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. :(If I understand it correctly, Council members would not be deputies. They would not be looking for incivilities, issuing PBC's, or blocking anyone. Council members would 'convene' in the event of someone getting blocked. They would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block. And if a block was warranted but Bob issued a 32 week block and Council members agreed amongst themselves that the blocked poster was, for example, putting forth effort to make amends, Council could lift Bob's block much sooner than his 32 week sentence.
So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent. I grew up the daughter of a high-ranking military officer. Dad had unbelievably high standards at the table. I remember being young elementary age, and while giggling about something like little kids do, a burp slipped out. I was quickly dismissed from the table without supper, confined to my room till the next morning. Dad's position was that such things were intolerable and could not be considered accidents. You had to develop the ability to control it. I remember being sent away from the table several different times for various infractions like that and confined to my room without supper. Mom pleaded with Dad over withholding food. He refused to budge. Without telling him, each and every time it happened she managed to sneak food into the room of whoever had been sent to bed without it. She thought he was being ridiculous, and she could not abide his extremity. Council seems a little like that benevolent Mom to me... Council has the power to release blocks that the majority of them agree are unwarranted or are unnecessarily long. If I understand it right, hey would have the last word. They don't need Bob's permission - so it wouldn't matter whether he's around or not.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:49:51
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob and deputies » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:13
> > > Can you imagine what it feels like to post something personal in an attempt to receive support, and see that post used to hurt you on Admin because you're a hated deputy? Can you imagine how it feels to be the target of rage, when your only goal was to help the people who are angry with you? Can you imagine how it feels to be on the receiving end of belittlement, contempt, and outright threats?
> > >
> > > I forgot to mention former friends becoming former friends because you're a deputy.
> > >
> > > Or people saying yes, they might at one time have felt friendly with you, but they can't anymore because you're a deputy and a minion of Bob.
> > >
> > > Dinah
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Bob
>
> If this is your decision, you should update the FAQ.I agree, if I decide that, I'll update the FAQ.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:50:31
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on November 29, 2010, at 10:18:15
> > keep up the good work..
>
> I'm not doing any work.
>
> Thanks for the thanks but I don't really understand...I intended that for Dinah, who's been organizing this renewed effort. :-)
Bob
Posted by 10derheart on November 30, 2010, at 16:40:15
In reply to Re: voluntary civility buddies, posted by Dr. Bob on November 30, 2010, at 15:50:31
Okay. Makes way more sense. Sorry.
Posted by jane d on November 30, 2010, at 16:58:56
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on November 30, 2010, at 1:11:34
> If I understand it correctly, ....
>Council members ....would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block.
Actually, if I recall correctly that was your proposal not Bob's. His only allows the board to lift the block after a minimum time was served - not negate it entirely.
What he actually suggested is here. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.html
> So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent.I'm not at all sure that's part of his proposal. But even if it is it seems naive to assume the council members will be universally loved. If they lift some blocks but not others they will draw fire from the friends of those they decline to pardon. If they lift all blocks no matter what then what is the point? And they still risk drawing fire from the victims of some of those blocked posters (and yes - some of them do have victims).
Jane
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:30:03
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by jane d on November 30, 2010, at 16:58:56
Thank you Jane for taking the time & trouble to clear up what I misstated.
> > If I understand it correctly, .... Council members ....would review the situation, and if amongst themselves the majority of them agree that the block was not warranted, they could lift the block.
> Actually, if I recall correctly that was your proposal not Bob's. His only allows the board to lift the block after a minimum time was served - not negate it entirely.I must have interjected some of my own wishful thinking :-)
> > So it's really quite a bit different than the deputy role. If I understand correctly, a chief feature of their role would be to keep Bob and his blocks "in check." He would, in essence, be handing Council the 'last word' on blocks. I don't yet see how Council members would 'draw fire,' since their role is benevolent.
>
> I'm not at all sure that's part of his proposal.Even with the mandatory minimum, the fact that they can lift blocks or shorten blocks without having to clear it through him really is handing over a tremendous amount of power that he has never before reliquished. It really is allowing the community to self-govern to a great extent.
> But even if it is it seems naive to assume the council members will be universally loved.Of course it would be. But as a rule no one is universally loved, regardless of whether or not they hold a Council position. I would sure like to be universally loved. I work hard to be worth loving. But life got much less stressful after I accepted that regardless of what I did, or how many pretzel knots I tied myself into, I will not be loved by everybody. Muffled recently warned that Bob's scanty communication is very frustrating. My verbosity, though, might genuinely be just as frustrating (or annoying) to some. So being universally loved is a goal that will guarantee failure.
> If they lift some blocks but not others they will draw fire from the friends of those they decline to pardon.That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's likely enough to merit being a heavy factor. To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels. Secondly, Council is a group of people.. not just one person. It would be harder for the friends of an unpardoned poster to know where to aim their fire. Also, the Council members are more emotionally protected because they are part of a group. That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. An unpardoned poster will never know who did, or didn't vote for their reprieve. Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what, but I think posting that data for everyone would undermine the insulation Council members will need to feel better about serving.
> And they still risk drawing fire from the victims of some of those blocked posters (and yes - some of them do have victims).I suppose I could be wrong, but I have a hard time imagining that individual council members would, in reality, draw the kind of fire you fear here. Deputies had all kinds of stuff thrown at them. But the duties of Council is a far cry from the duties of deputies. Not even on the same planet.
Further.. although I think it's understandable (and even healthy) for the community to run the Council idea through all potential problems, I think it's a mistake for the Community here to shoot the idea down. Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever. And the whole idea of self-governance necessitates members of the community being willing to put the time and energy to serve in leadership roles. The U.S. considers itself self-governed.. and as a result there are roles in government that are filled by those among us who want to pursue careers in government and politics. 'Self governance' without members being willing to lead, serve, and accept the accompanying risks of that would be the equivalent of Somalia. Do we really think we want that? Nothing just 'runs' on its own.. without running amok until the thugs take over.
I think it's important that the Community recognizes that it is wholly unfair to complain about anything Bob does if everyone scurries for their safe caves when an offer is made to create a Council that will hold self-governing powers. If no one is willing to stand up and wear the robe of leadership & service, then it is a ridiculous waste of Bob's time for anyone here to complain about anything he does. And if people here start throwing fire at the Council members who have made the sacrifice to lead and serve, then this Community deserves to be treated like a bunch of little children, including uncivil posters being blocked for however long and using whatever formula is satisfactory to Bob.
Solstice
Posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 2:34:55
In reply to Elders Council - Necessary for self-governance, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:30:03
Is Bob willing to relinquish his autocracy?
Sometimes he says things that suggest he is...
Mostly he simply doesn't relinquish as he could (e.g., on various matters with the Deputies).
If he isn't willing then whether the community is behind it or not is purely academic.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
In reply to Re: Elders Council - Necessary for self-governance, posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 2:34:55
Hi, everyone,
Regarding the proposal itself:
> 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? ... since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. ... 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.
> Council is a group of people.. not just one person. It would be harder for the friends of an unpardoned poster to know where to aim their fire. ... That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. ... Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what
>
> SolsticeThe idea would be for them to represent (and therefore be accountable to) posters, not me. So it seems to me that posters, not me, would need to elect them and know how they vote.
That said, they'd be free to abstain if they'd be the only vote against lifting a block.
--
Regarding running/serving:
> I've never ran for anything in my life and am happy to have it remain so.
>
> DinahMay I ask why you've never run for anything?
> it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate.
>
> SolsticePosters might run because they're competitive, but they might also run despite not being competitive -- because they want to contribute.
The vote totals wouldn't have to be posted.
5 candidates could run "unopposed". Someone who didn't want to risk running and not being elected could withdraw if a 6th candidate were nominated.
> I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
>
> ggThe peril Dinah mentioned, or a different one?
> I am just glad
> That people are watching out for themselves.
> I hate to see people get hurt.
>
> muffledI don't want anyone to get hurt, either. Like deputies, they should be able to take some heat.
--
> The wheels are turning.
>
> something that requires posters to do something that they simply will not do> Is Bob willing to relinquish his autocracy?
>
> Sometimes he says things that suggest he is...
>
> alexandra_kI can be willing to relinquish power -- which would come with responsibility -- but if posters simply will not assume it, we'll keep spinning our wheels. But it'll be more clear why we're stuck.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 5:53:59
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
so just to be clear -
the council people would have the power to lift blocks you have imposed if they voted to do so?
you would really give them the power to do that?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 5:57:58
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 5:53:59
after some minimum time had passed... whats that? one year?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 7:10:51
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by alexandra_k on December 1, 2010, at 5:57:58
> so just to be clear -
>
> the council people would have the power to lift blocks you have imposed if they voted to do so?
>
> you would really give them the power to do that?Yes.
> after some minimum time had passed... whats that?
I haven't decided, what do you think?
Bob
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 8:02:49
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 7:10:51
I was so excited to wake up to this stuff!
> > so just to be clear -
> >
> > the council people would have the power to lift blocks you have imposed if they voted to do so?
> >
> > you would really give them the power to do that?
>
> Yes.
>
> > after some minimum time had passed... whats that?
>
> I haven't decided, what do you think?
>
> Bob
I would say the minimum should be.. maybe... three days? I initially thought of a week.. but a week is usually what is given to people on their first block. Maybe I'm still harboring th idea that if the Council voted that a block was genuinely overkill - then it would be closer to having not been blocked at all than if the minimum was 1 week. I think I'm trying to figure out a way to address the very legitimate complaint about the threshhold. There have been times that blocks have been issued, and no one has really understood why the post provoking the block even merited a block. A real short minimum would provide a way to 'undo' those things. I very much believe that a council of five experienced, grounded, balanced members would be very wise in their use of the power to lift or shorten blocks.Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 8:29:21
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by gardenergirl on November 29, 2010, at 20:03:39
I of course understand perfectly those who do not wish to run for office. I don't know that Dr. Bob ever will. At any rate, I appear not to have the words to explain it to him.
I also wonder if the liability concerns of an Elder would differ from that of a Deputy. Once the issue came up, and I discovered that Dr. Bob was unwilling to take the risk of covering volunteer costs, I didn't feel right about asking my family to take risks he would not. My husband felt pretty strongly about it too. :) Otherwise I suppose I'd still be a deputy.
I have no real intention of spending money asking my attorney if his advice would be different about the Elder position when I won't be running for office.
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 8:35:59
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 8:29:21
Not that there's anything wrong with running for office. There are any number of worthy and necessary jobs that I am unwilling to do. Politician is one of them.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 8:45:10
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Regarding the proposal itself:
>
> > 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? ... since they are chosen by you from those nominated.. they still aren't quite your minions. ... 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.
>
> > Council is a group of people.. not just one person. It would be harder for the friends of an unpardoned poster to know where to aim their fire. ... That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. ... Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what
> >
> > Solstice
>
> The idea would be for them to represent (and therefore be accountable to) posters, not me. So it seems to me that posters, not me, would need to elect them and know how they vote.I know.... but there has been a very firm and wide-spread negative reaction to the idea of elections. I recognize the validity of why it is, as Dinah said, abhorrent. Elections really could create a whole 'nother monster that the long-standing members who reacted this way instinctively know is NOT a good thing in this venue. Think of it as Council's first 'vote' :-)
There's got to be another way. Members nominate, nominees accept the nomination, and you confirm is one way to do it that would be representative of the posters without it feeling like a 'popularity contest.'
> Regarding running/serving:
>
> > I've never ran for anything in my life and am happy to have it remain so.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> May I ask why you've never run for anything?
>
> > it does take a genuinely highly competitive spirit for elections to appeal to a nominated candidate.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> Posters might run because they're competitive, but they might also run despite not being competitive -- because they want to contribute.I didn't so much mean competitiveness as a motivation for someone to run.. as much as I meant that anyone whose nature is decidedly NOT competitive will be stopped by their aversion to it. I understand it because I also don't have a competitive nature - except when it comes to myself. I am always trying to 'beat' myself.. but if I am put in competition with another person, I will look for the first rabbit hole and will disappear. It is a powerful aversion that I don't think can be superceded by any amount of desire to contribute. I think you can have outstanding people with leadership potential who are very willing to contribute.. but who cannot abide competing with others to be deemed the most favored to do the contributing. I also think that the dynamics of this particular type of community is likely to have a significant proportion of people who find competition abhorent.
> The vote totals wouldn't have to be posted.
>
> 5 candidates could run "unopposed". Someone who didn't want to risk running and not being elected could withdraw if a 6th candidate were nominated.Semantics can be important, Bob. Semantics can make or break something. I'd highly recommend that the whole 'election' or 'running' concept be abandoned, and a method of putting a Council in place be constructed that does not include those terms or any kind of process that puts potential Council Members in a position of being subjected to being voted upon.
> > I'm too rejection-sensitive to want to "run" for a position that I found fraught with peril in the past.
> >
> > gg
>
> The peril Dinah mentioned, or a different one?
>
> > I am just glad
> > That people are watching out for themselves.
> > I hate to see people get hurt.
> >
> > muffled
>
> I don't want anyone to get hurt, either. Like deputies, they should be able to take some heat.For as long as you continue to compare any part of Council to Deputies, you're gonna have people associating the two regardless of how different they are. The associations generated with the term 'Deputies' are fraught with a LOT of pain. Using the term 'Deputies' to describe the Council concept causes people (very understandably) to shut down. There is nothing helpful about comparing the Council position with Deputies. Please see that.
> I can be willing to relinquish power -- which would come with responsibility -- but if posters simply will not assume it, we'll keep spinning our wheels. But it'll be more clear why we're stuck.
>
> BobI hope you're not suggesting that the clarity would focus on the members here. I myself have written that without members being willing to take leadership roles... then there can be no self-governance. But as this thing is discussed and developed, you might want to make sure there isn't a bull walking around this china closet... insensitive to the special sensitivities that are here... a bull sabotaging the development of a Council. There are very real sore spots here.. shifting focus away from yourself to the community.. and insensitivity to the inherent dynamics (i.e. non-competitive natures.. rejection sensitivities)... and I'd recommend that you do everything possible to avoid the Council concept unnecessarily putting pressure on those sensitivities. It is just nuts to use 'Deputies' and 'Council' in the same post - unless it's to demonstrate the contrast.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 8:58:11
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 8:02:49
I thought nothing Dr. Bob would do would surprise me.
But the idea that he would give posters the right to decide that his posts were overkill, or unjustified, does surprise me. He just as well deliberate with the council before issuing blocks, so as not to have his actions effectively overturned. He apparently has changed quite a bit.
What you're describing sounds as much a board of appeals as a parole board. Or perhaps even the first level of the judicial process. I can't help but think that animosity towards board members who vote that a block was *not* unjustified and that therefore the poster *was* in the wrong would be not insubstantial. Or that those who see themselves as victims of a poster, when the council members think that a block was unjustified, might be angry with those who might be seen as being insensitive to *their* pain. But perhaps I'm wrong.
You're right. It's not a large number of posters. But that's not counting the posters who feel protective of the blocked. Or the not blocked.
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 9:11:39
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 8:45:10
I appreciate your understanding the reluctance of many to compete. That does play a part in my objections to running myself. I'd feel very hurt to be rejected by my peers. Or not selected. It amounts to the same thing. In some ways it would seem like a popularity contest, and those can always feel hurtful, no matter what the outcome.
But my reluctance to be a politician is more than that. A politician is always worried about reelection. Posting the votes for or against puts an elder in the role of politician, who must consider how their vote will impact on their popularity. I find myself unwilling to even have the temptation to have the exercise of my values influenced by a concern for popularity.
If I'm not someone who does what they think is right and d*mn the consequences, then I do not know myself at all. "I yam what I yam and tha's all what I yam." Yet no one really likes to put themselves in the way for rejection.
I am far more suited to be an appointee than a politician. To serve by Dr. Bob's grace and approval, but to not serve Dr. Bob but rather the posters.
To be a politician would be to deny every fundamental thing I know about myself.
In addition to not being all that willing to be hurt.
Dr. Bob seems to be wishing to shift the focus and responsibility to the group itself. That's fine. This is just not a part I am willing to play. It's a fundamental shift in philosophy and ought to be carried out by those who are comfortable doing so.
Posted by muffled on December 1, 2010, at 9:34:17
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 7:10:51
cuz if they apologize and make repair, thats good enuf, lesson learned.
Max block should be 1 week.
This can be repeated as neccesary.
Tho seldom would it be I suspect.
AND, always a warning B4 block unless its really obvo person is flipping out and being cruel.
Long blocks are just not needed.
STOP LONG BLOCKS.
I could handle a 24 hr, it would still hurt, but I could hang on for 24 hr. It would give me a chance to think.SO, maybe these mods could do the blocking as needed. They could consult w/each other.
Bob could back off, and do things in CONSULTATION w/mods.
And if they MAJORITY against something he (bob) wants to implement, then its up to Bob to convince them its a good thing.
HE GOTO LISTEN AND HEED.
Bob goto NOT come barging in and blocking willy nilly.Mods need better protection. NO BOTHERING the mods will be tolerated.
MY thots.
KEEP IT SIMPLE, not alla this complexity.
SIMPLE.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:05:09
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 8:58:11
Oh Dinah... thank you so much for helping me better understand.
I am absolutely certain.. from personal and professional experience.. that when developing a concept or system modification, the only way to find out what will work is to know more about the nuances of what drives the dynamics. I don't know if I'm doing a very good job explaining it - - but the more you explain - - the more likely it is that we can figure out *Some*thing that will work. When we stop talking, though... that's when the possibilities dry up.
> I thought nothing Dr. Bob would do would surprise me.
>
> But the idea that he would give posters the right to decide that his posts were overkill, or unjustified, does surprise me.I don't have even a smidgen of the experience you have with Bob. And I genuinely understand why the posting community is legitimately reluctant to believe hoping for relief will result in relief. Now.. I may have jumped the gun in implying that I think Bob is willing to let Council determine if his block is overkill.. but I think that is the essence of his offer to allow a Council to, by majority vote, release a blocked poster from their sentence. I also think that Bob has the desire and potential to be very fair.. but I also think that the shear volume of posters, postings, etc. makes it very, very difficult for him to stay attuned to what's going on here. I think he recognizes that, and that's why he's willing to trust a Council of 5 to overturn a block, and to revise the length of a block deemed legitimate, but excessive.
> He just as well deliberate with the council before issuing blocks, so as not to have his actions effectively overturned. He apparently has changed quite a bit.Maybe he's the same, but his understanding has changed? And remember.. he has said that Council's jobs would be: 1) pay attention to blocking activity, and if there is an outcry over a particular block.. Council convenes, discusses the merits of the block, determines by majority whether and when it should be lifted, and then has the power to actually release the block (without clearing it through him); and 2) be available to Bob for consulting purposes. I think that means that any ideas he has for the site.. (i.e.facebook?).. or other contentious matters that arise and concern him... he will discuss it with the Council. Council members are actively posting members. They are attuned to what's going on here. He will rely on them to provide him a sense of what the collective membership thinks.
And to be clear.. he isn't actually relinquishing power. He alone has the power to shut the whole site down. What he's doing is sharing power.. by trusting Council's wisdom regarding blocks.. and giving them the power to restore a poster's posting privileges.
> What you're describing sounds as much a board of appeals as a parole board.I like "Board of Appeals" - I think that's closer. In essence.. say Bob blocks a poster. Since Council exists, all blocks are subject to Council review. Council may frequently not dispute the legitimacy of the block.. and they may not dispute a 2-week or 4-week block. But if a poster ends up blocked for 6 months because they repeatedy said f*rt without the asterick, Council could rule "Ok.. it's our decision that the block was justified because that Poster knows that using that word without the asterick just isn't allowed.. but we think 6 months is overkill. So what we're going to do is leave the block for 2 weeks, and then we will release the poster from the block as long as they agree to turn on the asterick thingy." Regardless, Council has the final word. And as long as the site is generally running well, he would not interfere. That's an example of how I think Bob intends it to work.
> I can't help but think that animosity towards board members who vote that a block was *not* unjustified and that therefore the poster *was* in the wrong would be not insubstantial.I don't think it would be like that. I think that the intensity of the animosity that has been on here regarding blocks would not materialize with Council. I think the animosity is generated by the excessive lengths of blocks, and low-threshhold blocks. The existence of Council would remedy those things. The blocks that Council agrees is justified probably really will be justified! But - say that poster appeals to Council and wants it reduced. Council can convene and rule "We are willing to reduce your block from 5 months to 1 month, but only on the condition of you 1) having your first 10 posts reviewed by a Civility Buddy; or 2) turning on the posting delay for the balance of the 5 month block so that your posts have a 24 hour delay." Now see.. this kind of reasonable 'justice,' in my view.. is not going to generate animosity toward Council! I think the vast majority of Babble is reasonable and wants moderation. They aren't going to pitch fits because of an uncivil poster getting blocked. The intensity of the animosity you've seen here that you're worried about, I think, became what it is because of the outcry against the current blocking procedures. Bob's chronic difficulty with genuinely 'listening' to what was going on intensified the animosity.
In addition.. remember.. Council is five people. I would be totally against Council having to disclose to anyone but Bob who voted for what, or even whether a Council member abstained from voting. People could get angry with 'Council' as an institution, but how could they get angry with a particular Council member? That council member may have been the one who voted For the blocked poster!
> Or that those who see themselves as victims of a poster, when the council members think that a block was unjustified, might be angry with those who might be seen as being insensitive to *their* pain. But perhaps I'm wrong.I think that the 'victims' should be a temperature guage that Council uses in its determinations of blocks. From what I've seen.. there are way more people who are considered 'victims' by Bob who weren't even offended by the post! They sometimes seem annoyed that they were considered 'victims,' and felt worse about someone being blocked on account of having supposedly made them feel put down (when they didn't feel put down). So I just don't see it materialising like you're concerned about. In cases where there is someone who feels very victimized, chances are that there will be no dispute about the legitimacy of the block, and any adjustments to block length should probably consider the impact on the victim. Part of the blocked poster's access to restoration of privileges could and should involve repairing the damage they did, which will likely result in the victim feeling the acknowledgment that causes the feelings of victimization to dissipate.
Let's keep dialoguing about it, Dinah..
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 10:14:46
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time » Dinah, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:05:09
I've said what I think.
You disagree with me about the likely outcome. And I think about the desirability of rule by a group of posters.
I can't help but wonder what a group of posters might have thought about the recent incident. I can see three posters believing that blocks were "unjustified" because they perceived the statements involved to have been "true". I can see the feelings about the worthiness or likeability of the blocked and the victim influencing decisions.
I wish the best for Babble. If this turns out to be the best, I'm glad.
But I fail to share your enthusiasm.
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.