![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 132 to 156 of 257. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:35:59
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 9:11:39
> 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.See..Dr. Bob? This is the instinctive wisdom I was talking about. I think Dinah's describing what is at the core of the 'abhorernce.' It's about 'elections' and 'rejection' and violating one's conscience because of our biological need to not be rejected. This is an example of why Bob has every reason to trust the wisdom of this community.
> 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.YES! That's what I've been trying to say! I sure do wish I knew how to get it all into two sentences like you do.... :-) So yes. Appointment. Maybe Bob could announce that he wants nominations on all the boards, and give - say - a 2 week period to send nominations to him privately. He alone will know the members who are getting the most nominations, which is an indication of the level of trust the community has in the nominees. Bob can make his appointments based on that, and on his own thoughts on each nominee's experience, etc. that would make them good for the job. This would be similar to how the Senate confirms Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court - but inversely. The President nominates who he likes for the Supreme Court, and the Senate's job is to make sure they are qualified. Here - the community nominates, and Bob picks the five he thinks are most qualified. Then he could privately contact those five and ask if thy are willing to accept the appointment. At that time he can personally answer questions and concerns they each may have about serving. That will help ensure no one rejects the appointment because of an inaccurate assumption. When he finds five who are willing to accept, then he announces this year's Council members. Each year he could repeat the process - which would provide what he wanted with the Community being able to Not re-nominate.
> 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.I think the appointment thing would get around those problems. Do you?
> Dr. Bob seems to be wishing to shift the focus and responsibility to the group itself.I think that by creating a Council, he's trying to respond to the demands for self-governance. As for his idea about elections, I think he was trying to solve the "Bob's Minions" problem. He wanted Council to totally represent the posters. He just may not have thought about the more negative underlying aspects of 'elections' that you have done so well at pointing out.
> 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.I'm thinking you're talking specifically about the election idea - and not about Council in general? As a temperature guage.. would you (as someone opposed to politics and competition) be willing to serve and/or support the Council concept with the kind of appointment process I described?
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:52:28
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 10:14:46
> 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 think that with a group of five.. there will likely be a voice of reason. As for rule by a group of posters.. well.. I've heard a lot of kicking and screaming about self-governance.
Bob is making a significant effort. A little late, maybe.. but it's still significant. I don't think anything is perfect. Certainly, Council could make decisions about a block that other posters object to. But civilized society cannot exist without some kind of leadership. We've been doing it by dictatorship, which to some it seems to feel like a Sadaam-type dictatorship. We can do it by a Council, which would be more like an oligarchy... where we are electing to be 'ruled' by a group of our own that we consider to be especially qualified and trustworthy. Will they make mistakes? Yes. Will their own motives sometimes emerge? of course! We'd have human beings on this Council. I'd rather be ruled by the varying motivations of five different people that 'check' each other than by a single person who is checked by no one but a bunch of complaining posters that he doesn't *have* to listen to! I'm willing to accept Council's humanity. The combination of them working together will throw it toward wisdom. not perfection.. but wisdom.
To stand against the Council concept before it's even been tried is to opt for things to stay like there are.. Bob-rule Those who prefer that should oppose Council. Those who complain about Bob-rule should give the Council idea a chance. And those who opt against at least giving the Council idea a chance should never utter another complaint about anything that takes place under Bob-rule. We've got our chance here... and I think it is worth taking a chance on. We could always go back to Bob-rule.
> I wish the best for Babble. If this turns out to be the best, I'm glad.
>
> But I fail to share your enthusiasm.
I am enthusiastic. You don't have to be enthusiastic... I'd settle for interested?Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 10:59:40
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:35:59
> As a temperature guage.. would you (as someone opposed to politics and competition) be willing to serve and/or support the Council concept with the kind of appointment process I described?
If that were the only issue, perhaps.
But that leaves an awful lot of issues. Including the one about Dr. Bob being unwilling to assume the legal risk for volunteers.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 11:03:12
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 10:59:40
> > As a temperature guage.. would you (as someone opposed to politics and competition) be willing to serve and/or support the Council concept with the kind of appointment process I described?
>
> If that were the only issue, perhaps.
>
> But that leaves an awful lot of issues. Including the one about Dr. Bob being unwilling to assume the legal risk for volunteers.This is something I know nothing about. Please tell me what is involved in the leagal risk issue, and where it stands now.
Also, please give me an idea what other issues stand in the way.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 11:03:15
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 10:52:28
> To stand against the Council concept before it's even been tried is to opt for things to stay like there are.. Bob-rule Those who prefer that should oppose Council. Those who complain about Bob-rule should give the Council idea a chance.
I have no real objection to Bob-rule and don't consider it at all Sadaam like. I may complain about individual decisions, but I don't complain about the basic concept.
However I have no deep desire to oppose the Council idea either. If that's the direction Bob and posters wish to go, it is not for me to oppose it.
Posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 11:29:04
In reply to Re: Elders Council - minimum block time, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 11:03:15
> > To stand against the Council concept before it's even been tried is to opt for things to stay like there are.. Bob-rule Those who prefer that should oppose Council. Those who complain about Bob-rule should give the Council idea a chance.
>
> I have no real objection to Bob-rule and don't consider it at all Sadaam like.
That has been my observation of you. Of course, you have a well-developed ability to self-monitor. As I've said before, you are one of the most interesting, wise people I've ever encountered. I have learned a lot from how your mind processes experiences, and your delightful way of expressing those things. So your peace with Bob-rule is a given. You don't have trouble coloring within the lines. But it is a dictatorship... and there are a fair number of posters here who sometimes have trouble coloring within the lines, and describe their experience of Bob-rule in a way that calls up (for me) the spectre of Sadaam's dictatorship of Iraq. It doesn't matter whether I identify personally with that sentiment. But that sentiment is an ongoing energy-drain on the boards. So although Bob-rule doesn't bother me personally.. I like this place. I have experienced how helpful it can be. I don't want it to just survive.. I want it tho thrive. Unless that dynamic is addressed, I believethge site will continue to be bogged down in outcrys against Bob-rule, depleting the potential energy that could be spent on just being a cool place for people to discuss their therapy & their meds & their lives & just heal.> I may complain about individual decisions, but I don't complain about the basic concept.
Well.. what we've got here is more than a basic concept. What we have here is Bob-rule with all its characteristics. So not objecting to Bob-rule by exploring an alternative is to say we prefer Bob-rule over exploring an alternative. And if we do that, then I don't think we should complain about even individual decisions. It's not fair to complain if we are offered an alternative but don't engage in exploring it or are unwilling to give it a chance.
> However I have no deep desire to oppose the Council idea either. If that's the direction Bob and posters wish to go, it is not for me to oppose it.
I share with you the capacity to be fine whichever way it goes. And I feel sadness about the experiences you've had here and with Bob that seems to be a factor in your reluctance to feel hopeful about an alternative. It's really a shame.. the long delays in Bob's responsiveness.Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 1, 2010, at 12:55:34
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 9:11:39
I agree with substantially all of what Dinah said.
I, too, fit better in a community's administration as an appointee of its "leader". I was comfortable with doing what I thought Dr. Bob would do if he were here (since we often deferred to him to act personally on the more controversial or perplexing situations when he *was* available) when a deputy. If I hadn't generally supported Dr. Bob's philosophy around civility (which I did and still do) I would never have been a deputy.
I don't mind the blocking formula, although every once in a while I found it generated too long of a block. Those times I know were more of a gut reaction. I couldn't always articulate why the last incivility that triggered the block, put into the calculator as so many others had been previously without bothering my sense of fairness, felt 'off' in a particular case. But that did happen, though not frequently. Maybe those times would be the ones where a Council would be useful.
I don't know. I think even if this group is chosen by some others means than election, I would still decline any suggestion I serve. I am as wise as the next person, I think, due to life experience, time at Babble, and the grace of God in giving me a (mostly, relatively, presently) sound mind. But as some know and others may not fully understand, I like civility very much. It helped draw me to Babble, it allowed me to stay. I respectfully disagree with many of the most ardent protesters about the current system. I find it difficult to even understand the problem at times.
In light of how I am, I think I would be happy to be a civility buddy and that's all. I don't think if this is all being driven by a passionate need to change how and when PBCs/blocks are issued that I am the right person to participate in an Elders Council at all.
Posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
In reply to Elders Council - Necessary for self-governance, posted by Solstice on December 1, 2010, at 0:30:03
>
> .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.I'm glad to see you acknowlege that at last. So why is this Council important again?
>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.
Protected from accountability for their decisions? In my own experience anonymous groups do things that the individuals in them would never think of doing. In another post you referred to this as a dictatorship by Bob. Aren't you just proposing substituting another group of dictators? An even less accountable group if you have your way about secrecy (which I'll note is also currently only your proposal - not Bob's).
I notice you failed to address the question of the victims of blocked posters. Do you really believe that there are none?
> Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever.Has it really? SOME members here have certainly. Others have sometimes thought it would be better under THEIR governance (I admit to being fond of that idea myself but I haven't found many takers for appointing ME dictator. Go figure.) Seen in that light Bob might be a fairly good compromise.
I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for the idea of self governance. But there are sites already doing just that and I suspect that most people who find that critically important have already sought them out. People who remain at this site have already voted in a way.
> 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.
Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?Jane
who is still confused about why we need an incredibly elaborate process set up for a minor problem
Posted by Willful on December 1, 2010, at 17:19:14
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council » Solstice, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 9:11:39
One thing that could better the situation of Elders if having people with not very thin skins-- and in that sense, having elections, if we could find good candidates, would be a useful enterprise. It at least somewhat requires that people be thickskinned enough to handle losing, even if that does always feel bad.
It might mean then that they could weather some of the storms of making difficult or even unpopular decisions, which apparently can really affect the comfort level and sense of community of quasi-authority figures here.
Willful
Posted by gardenergirl on December 1, 2010, at 21:15:59
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
I still would love to see a trial period where the block length is capped at, say, one month. And I wouldn't object to always issuing a PBC prior to a block. If Dr. Bob wanted to give this idea a try, I would volunteer to help out as a deputy again during that time, should he wish it if he felt that more frequent admin intervention would be required.
gg
Posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 21:51:54
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by gardenergirl on December 1, 2010, at 21:15:59
That's a very generous offer, gg. Obviously if blocks were shortened, administration might take more time and your help would be very useful.
Posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
> > .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.
>
> I'm glad to see you acknowlege that at last. So why is this Council important again?? Perhaps because there are people here who are distressed by thge current system? Including many (think Scott) who are suprememly Civil and don't find themselves ever in trouble, but are bothered by the stifling effect of the current system? And.. I'm not sure what I could have said that provoked your first sentence there. Statements (like mine, which you posted above) taken out of context can be a problem.
> >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.
>
>
> Protected from accountability for their decisions? In my own experience anonymous groups do things that the individuals in them would never think of doing.Jane. We aren't talking about a Council with universal powers that could lead to what you seem to fear. Bob's proposed Council has a single power - to lift blocks before they're up according to Bob's formula. What do they need to be accountable for? They don't make rules others have to follow (like Congress), they don't have any fiduciary responsibilities where they are collecting and spending others' money (like taxes), and they are not enforcing the law (like the Executive branch on every level of government). That's where you need accountability. All this Council is doing is voting whether a blocked poster's incivility merits the length of block Bob issued. Is that something you are afraid of?
> In another post you referred to this as a dictatorship by Bob. Aren't you just proposing substituting another group of dictators?Taking a statement out of context does create problems. But the answer is No. Bob's proposed Council (which I support) will not become a substitution for Bob (who would remain the only one with the power to block posters). Dictatorship is an autocracy run amok. It has negsative conotations. Bob's proposed Council is by definition Not a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a single person (not a group) that is in power. As I have said - probably in the same post from which you took this other thing out of context - a group with power is more of an oligarchy. In the United States, the Executive branch of government is comparable to an Autocracy (which has the potential to turn into a dictatorship without our system of checks and balances). The Judiciary Branch is considered comparable to an oligarchy (if the Judiciary Branch were the only ruling power). It is not possible for a Council to be a dictatorship.
> An even less accountable group if you have your way about secrecy (which I'll note is also currently only your proposal - not Bob's).Have my way about secrecy? Wow. Less accountable? I think you wholly misunderstand Bob's proposal, as well as the reasons for my opposition to disclosure of individual Council members' votes on releasing blocks. Council would not be making rules, or issuing discipline of any kind. What do they need to be accountable for? Whether an individual member voted for or against a blocked poster being released from their block? Secrecy? That makes it sound like the community would be at risk of Council getting away with being exploitive and harmful. Bob's proposed Council would not have any kind of power that would give them the ability to be exploitive or harmful. Think of our court system.. and juries. The only time members of a jury are asked to disclose their vote is in death penalty cases in which case it is unanimous anyway. In Civil suit juries or criminal juries that don't get unanimous votes, no juror is required to disclose their individual vote. Ever. Is there anything about that particular voting secrecy that harms our society? What about our country's elections? NO one has to disclose who they voted for. Being able to vote secretly is a protected right in this country. This protected 'secrecy' is a huge deal, and if you read the news during local or national elections, you'll see someone who is in trouble for attempting to violate the protection of voting 'secrecy.' The reason it's protected by law is to prevent others (i.e. 'special interests') from putting pressure on individual voters to vote a particular way. And for the same reason, I don't think disclosure of individual votes should be required with Council.
Why would you be afraid of Council members not disclosing their individual votes on whether to release a particular poster from their block? What problem would disclosure of individual votes eliminate? Do you see the problems disclosure could create?
> I notice you failed to address the question of the victims of blocked posters. Do you really believe that there are none?Perhaps you failed to read all of my posts?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972062.html
> > Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever.
>
> Has it really? SOME members here have certainly.Yes, self-governance has been a long-term and frequent theme. Many who dont get blocked prefer self-governance.
> Others have sometimes thought it would be better under THEIR governance (I admit to being fond of that idea myself but I haven't found many takers for appointing ME dictator. Go figure.) Seen in that light Bob might be a fairly good compromise.
I think your statement here may arise from confusion about the difference between a dictator (single as in individual person who is ruler), and oligarchy (a group of people, typically of some kind of trusted stature (i.e. by education, experience, nobility, or because they are landowners, etc.). Additionally, you seem to misunderstand Bobs proposal. He is not proposing that Council replace him. His proposal for a Council actually takes a single, very significant power away from him and grants it to a group of members nominated by the community whereby Bobs blocks have the potential to be shortened by Council, at their discretion by majority vote. Not all blocked posters should have overturned or shortened blocks. But many whose blocks are warranted, deserve (for various reasons involving repair) to have their blocks shortened. If you arent someone who gets blocked, the existence of a Council wont affect you in any way, unless one of your friends gets blocked and you are hoping to see them again sooner than Bobs block provides.
> I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for the idea of self governance. But there are sites already doing just that and I suspect that most people who find that critically important have already sought them out. People who remain at this site have already voted in a way.Not necessarily. Remaining may mean that there is more benefit to being here than they feel harmed by what they may wish would change. Remaining can also mean that they have people here that they care about, and they want to see a unique and exceptional community that is a safe place for those with mental health issues improve. By staying, they may be able to make it better.
> > 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.
>
>
> Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?You seem to have misunderstood. My comment was not only taken out of context, but also distorted to mean things that are not even implied. I was Not referring to dissenters in general. I was referring Only to those who complain loudly about not liking Bob-rule and all the power he alone has, but who refuse to participate in giving an alternative a fair chance. Do you see the difference? To use an extreme comparison that I hope is not excerpted and put in another post out of context.. perhaps think about a prisoner who feels hes treated like a child because he has to eat gruel every day and has no say-so in what kind of food he eats. He complains loudly about being treated like a child... he wants more food choices. Administration responds by agreeing to provide space and tools/seeds for a prison garden. If that prisoner then refuses to participate in planting, watering and harvesting the produce, wouldnt he deserve to continue being fed gruel and feeling treated like a child?
> Jane
> who is still confused about why we need an incredibly elaborate process set up for a minor problemSolstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:02:17
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on December 1, 2010, at 21:51:54
Posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
> Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
gg
Posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
who is now completely confused as to whether we have a major problem responsible for the loss of valuable posters and the apparent dying of babble as a place for connection and communication, or a minor problem not worth discussing.
didnt we have weeks, if not more of posters being engaged in developing an idea of self-governance and getting interested and maybe even excited about it--
I mean now suddenly it seems that this was all a lot of talk for or about nothing.
Or are you just questioning one reason that's been given for this whole thing?
I just don't understand.
Willful
Posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:43:08
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
And I personally, if we do stay with the current system but with a much lower cap on blocks, would like to see some new deputies. It would be a great thing to have some fresh ideas and input, rather than just reappointing the same people, who would have the same standards and responses as before.
Nothing against the old deputies. They were great and made a huge contribution to babble. But just that sometimes change is revitalizing.
Willful
Posted by Dinah on December 2, 2010, at 17:13:22
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
> Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
>
> ggI agree.
Posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 20:53:36
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by gardenergirl on December 2, 2010, at 14:03:55
>
> > Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
>
> Anger? Really? I didn't perceive anger in janed's posts. Disagreement, obviously, but not anger. Interesting.
>
> gg
Ok.. maybe 'anger' wasn't the best word. But it wasn't simply disagreement, either. It was more. Irritation was leaking through her post. And the irritated challenges were directed at me, but were based on a number of distortions of what I said. I am more than happy to answer anyone's challenges to what I think. That's how I learn more. But challenging me based on distortions of what I said and negative assumptions about what I mean isn't particularly civil. Since it wasn't your words that were distorted, and it wasn't you who was mischaracterized, it makes sense to me that her post to me wouldn't strike you in the same way that it struck me.I will always make an effort to address and correct any distortions of what I say.
Solstice
Posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:15:55
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 2, 2010, at 17:13:22
Posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:43:08
Thanks for the compliment....I think. ;-)
What if no one - or no one else but gg - volunteers to be Dr. Bob's deputy?
He had not been able in the past to get many (any?) new posters to do so after a certain point. Do you think if caps on blocks were much shorter it would be the change that would make it more likely different posters would then be willing to be deputies?
Just curious.
- 10der (former deputy who has no problem hoping for revitalization)
Posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:01:18
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
> > > .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.
...
> ? Perhaps because there are people here who are distressed by thge current system? Including many (think Scott) who are suprememly Civil and don't find themselves ever in trouble, but are bothered by the stifling effect of the current system? And.. I'm not sure what I could have said that provoked your first sentence there. Statements (like mine, which you posted above) taken out of context can be a problem.
I don't agree that your statements were taken out of context. I don't, however, have any problem with your asserting that your words did not accurately reflect your intentions and clarifying them. And, while I thought the context of the above statement was pretty clear I do see how I could have spelled it out a little more clearly for you. Put simply, I was commenting on your stating that we had a big problem affecting many people when lobbying for the change you want to see but then, when someone pointed out potential problems with your suggestion, claiming the problems weren't important because your suggestion wouldn't affect many people. Do you see the problem in using two different fact sets for different aspects of the same proposal?
> I think you wholly misunderstand Bob's proposal, as well as the reasons for my opposition to disclosure of individual Council members' votes on releasing blocks.
I don't think I misunderstood either one. I didn't agree with it. Do you really believe all disagreement is simply a result of misunderstanding? However I think that your suggestion for an amendment to Bob's proposal should be discussed separately for clarity's sake and I'll try to respond to that separately later.
> Perhaps you failed to read all of my posts?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972062.htmlPerhaps I did. But I certainly tried. :)
> I think your statement here may arise from confusion about the difference between a dictator.....
> Additionally, you seem to misunderstand Bobs proposal.
Again. I disagreed. It's not the same thing at all.
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?
>
> You seem to have misunderstood. My comment was not only taken out of context, but also distorted to mean things that are not even implied. I was Not referring to dissenters in general. I was referring Only to those who complain loudly about not liking Bob-rule and all the power he alone has, but who refuse to participate in giving an alternative a fair chance. Do you see the difference? ....Again. I'm happy to see you amend your original statement even though I don't agree it was taken out of context. But your argument still seems problematical. It still "sounds" as though you are saying "my way or the highway". What about people who feel there should be a different approach?
> Solstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think that disagreeing with some of your ideas equals anger directed at you. I'm terribly sorry that you do. I'm not however so sorry about it that I will now keep silent if you say something I don't agree with.
Jane
Note. I don't believe anything here was quoted out of context either however to see the original all you need to do is click on the link at the top of the post next to "in reply to".
Posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:46:25
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Willful on December 2, 2010, at 15:39:17
> who is now completely confused as to whether we have a major problem responsible for the loss of valuable posters and the apparent dying of babble as a place for connection and communication, or a minor problem not worth discussing.
I'm not sure it's either of those. I certainly didn't mean to suggest it wasn't worth discussing.
> didnt we have weeks, if not more of posters being engaged in developing an idea of self-governance and getting interested and maybe even excited about it--
Did we? We certainly had a lot of posts. And I think there was some real discussion buried in there. But it also seemed (to me) as though many of the posts just talked past each other. I kept finding myself reading a post and then a reply and feeling that the they were talking about two totally different things and neither poster realized it. For example, we had posts referring to "civility buddies" but describing a council even after civility buddies had been explicitly defined. I'd like to see the discussions continue until it's clear just what we are all agreeing or disagreeing about.
>I mean now suddenly it seems that this was all a lot of talk for or about nothing.
So far as I know the discussion is still open.
> Or are you just questioning one reason that's been given for this whole thing?
Not *just* that but I do question some of the overstatements that have been made about blocks. That they are frequent. They're not. That they are always (or often) capricious and unreasonable. I recently looked at a full years worth and, while I personally would draw the lines differently, that's not true either. That everybody who has ever left did so because they think the block policy is too strict. I can also remember people leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough. Etc, etc.
Is that any clearer?
Jane
Posted by muffled on December 3, 2010, at 9:26:42
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
> What if no one - or no one else but gg - volunteers to be Dr. Bob's deputy?
>
> He had not been able in the past to get many (any?) new posters to do so after a certain point. Do you think if caps on blocks were much shorter it would be the change that would make it more likely different posters would then be willing to be deputies?
>
> Just curious.
>
> - 10der (former deputy who has no problem hoping for revitalization)
>
>*10der :) (((safe hugs)))
I once considered deputydom,cuz I can separate myself from the general noise. But....I didn't trust Bob, and didn't know why exactly.
Then it all became more clear, and I was SO glad I trusted my instincts.
However, I think if Bob finally started to turly listen and heed, then I would help out.
But at this point, I am still very wary of Bob indeed.
And yes, for me, block length(and lack of warning/and too easily blocked) is a HUGE sticking point.
TC
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.