![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 138 to 162 of 257. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 13:48:07
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by jane d on December 3, 2010, at 6:46:25
Hi, Jane.
Thanks for answering. I felt, though, that your answers mostly consisted of disagreeing with my categorizations like "not worth discussing" or "weeks of discussion" -- when my point was elsewhere, ie, the question of whether there was or is a serious or needing-to-be-addressed problem here at babble about self-governance and imposition and length of blocks.
I had thought the transition from civility buddies to a counsel of Elders was made pretty explicitly in the suggestion of the need for a larger voice for posters in the blocks-- which therefore would be more acceptable, and perhaps more consistently applied (because the elders would be here more consistently) and also shorter. The civility buddy idea contemplated the same rules and general methods for imposing blocks, which would be Bob and Bob's formula, both of which have been claimed to be the source of conflict and people's leaving. The counsel of Elders was a completely different take on how to handle blocks.
I may have gotten the wrong idea, but initially, and for quite a while, there was general acceptance -- or at least not overt disagreement--- about the value of the Elders idea. Then, as Bob seemed surprisingly agreeable, after all this energy had been expended on convincing him, etc-- a sudden voicing of all these doubts, disagreements and poking holes in the premises of the idea itself.
I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea-- which, by the way, I have no particular stake in-- only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it. I may have misread the overall response. But this was my impression.
So I was questioning why this sudden backing away-- from something that would of course be a major change and might not work out--but which seemed quite a creative and interesting idea? After all, it has been my observation that there is a ~lot~ of unhappiness with the blocking system and experience here. And I would love to see it addressed and to see people less focussed on injustice and hurtfulness of babble and getting more a sense of support and connection here.
Whether there are, in fact, too many or inconsistent blocks, I can't say for a fact. It isa fact that at times I've walked on eggshells when posting here-- and it's also my impression that PBCs and blocks are inconsistently and not quickly enough applied. But whether these issues need to be addressed is of course another thing.
But I am agnostic about the Counsel of Elders idea, for many reasons. I didn't contribute to the development of the idea because I wouldn't want to be on the counsel and I wasn't sure it would work. But I don't want to see it sabotaged at this point-- or made to seem as the subject line say, a solution in search of a problem. Clearly there was a problem. I just don't think there is any question about that.. I would be interested in whether a counsel improved things. I do think blocks need to be shorter.
I don't remember anyone leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough-- but I also am not convinced that the blocks explain why this place is (or may be) moribund.
Willful
Posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 14:17:03
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by 10derheart on December 2, 2010, at 22:19:27
Hi, 10derheart.
I think it would help a lot if the blocks were shorter, and also if they were more consistent-- not that they aren't consistent in the sense of being somewhat predictable, but in the sense that there isn't enough moderation and so many uncivil things are missed, and only the unlucky person who is noticed gets any moderation. There is also, for the same reason, too much time between the uncivil post and the response.
But I certainly think shorter blocks would relieve some of the dissatisfaction--. Maybe there would also be more people willing to be deputies if there were less unhappiness.
thanks for your response,
Willful
Posted by Solstice on December 3, 2010, at 14:27:16
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 13:48:07
Hi Willful..
Your descriptions of the concepts involved are wonderfully easy to read.
> I had thought the transition from civility buddies to a counsel of Elders was made pretty explicitly in the suggestion of the need for a larger voice for posters in the blocks-- which therefore would be more acceptable, and perhaps more consistently applied (because the elders would be here more consistently) and also shorter. The civility buddy idea contemplated the same rules and general methods for imposing blocks, which would be Bob and Bob's formula, both of which have been claimed to be the source of conflict and people's leaving. The counsel of Elders was a completely different take on how to handle blocks.I think Elders' Council and Civility Buddies are two separate tools that would genuinely address the issues that have created so much stress here. It would limit block lengths when they *should* be limited (Council), and the Civility Buddy aspect would be a resource for those who want to avoid posting things that would be uncivil in the first place. I think Bob did want to separate the threads, though. But I think both of these mechanisms would work hand-in-hand to reduce the energy devoted to complaints about the current system.
> I may have gotten the wrong idea, but initially, and for quite a while, there was general acceptance -- or at least not overt disagreement--- about the value of the Elders idea. Then, as Bob seemed surprisingly agreeable, after all this energy had been expended on convincing him, etc-- a sudden voicing of all these doubts, disagreements and poking holes in the premises of the idea itself.Fascinating observation. You're right. That's exactly what hbappened. I can't help but wonder if my enthusiasm about it has been part of the problem? Maybe an active 'new kid on the block' (I'm not new to the site, but I am new to the active community).. but maybe my sudden and frequent appearance and input on the subject is off-putting? I also don't have any kind of a vested interest in it.. so I'd be happy to back away from it and remain silent on the issue if that would help others less suspicious of Bob's Elder's Council proposal.
> I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea-- which, by the way, I have no particular stake in-- only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it. I may have misread the overall response. But this was my impression.Mine as well. I was feeling kinda alone on that :-) Now I don't.
> So I was questioning why this sudden backing away-- from something that would of course be a major change and might not work out--but which seemed quite a creative and interesting idea? After all, it has been my observation that there is a ~lot~ of unhappiness with the blocking system and experience here. And I would love to see it addressed and to see people less focussed on injustice and hurtfulness of babble and getting more a sense of support and connection here.
Yeah... my thinking as well.
> Whether there are, in fact, too many or inconsistent blocks, I can't say for a fact. It isa fact that at times I've walked on eggshells when posting here-- and it's also my impression that PBCs and blocks are inconsistently and not quickly enough applied. But whether these issues need to be addressed is of course another thing.
>
> But I am agnostic about the Counsel of Elders idea, for many reasons. I didn't contribute to the development of the idea because I wouldn't want to be on the counsel and I wasn't sure it would work. But I don't want to see it sabotaged at this point-- or made to seem as the subject line say, a solution in search of a problem. Clearly there was a problem. I just don't think there is any question about that.. I would be interested in whether a counsel improved things.And we'll never know if it never gets off the ground, and if trusted members of the community aren't willing to serve. I can understand the negative (and in my view legitimate) reaction to being elected vs. appointed. I think there's a way to satisfy Bob's desire that the Elder's Council arise out of the Community's collective opinion about who should serve.. but also keep it from being a popularity contest where preferences are shown for some of the nominees over others. I also understand the legitimate concerns about backlash from people complaining about Council decisions.. which is why I think it's more important to limit that potential (especially because of the vast experience of deputies of how bad the backlash can be). But by not posting individual votes, individual Council members could 'vote' with their conscience (as they should) without risking backlash for it, because since they are part of a group of people, no one would know who to get angry with. They could get angry about the decision, but not directly at a particular Council member.
> I do think blocks need to be shorter.That's the biggest problem... and Bob has offered to turn over authority for adjusting block length to a Council who determine it by majority vote. The Community will never know what it will be like to have shorter blocks until they throw their support behind a Council of community members that they have nominated to serve in those roles, and then continue to support them as an entity.
> I don't remember anyone leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough-- but I also am not convinced that the blocks explain why this place is (or may be) moribund.Good point. Blocks may only be part of it.. but they do seem to be a significant part. My gut tells me that addressing block length problem will, over the long term, eventually lead to less contribution of any of the other things that may contribute to "moribund." :-)
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » Willful, posted by Solstice on December 3, 2010, at 14:27:16
I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.
As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.
That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position. It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.
The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.
I am for the former but against the latter.
I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.
Posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:10:16
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
By that I mean that I can only explain my own motivations. I can't speak to the motivations of others, but I doubt they were personal either.
Posted by PartlyCloudy on December 4, 2010, at 9:32:50
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem, posted by Dinah on December 4, 2010, at 9:08:49
> I can only speak for myself, but the thing that changed my attitude was role inflation.
>
> Originally the civility buddy idea was just that. A public offer to be available for at least some of the traditional role of civility buddy. I had volunteered to do that and to coordinate whatever needed coordinated.
>
> Then all of a sudden, civil buddies were being talked about as something that I had never volunteered to do or to coordinate. And that I had no interest in doing.
>
> As a result, I not only was upset at the new definition, but I wanted to resign what I had agreed to do.
>
> That objection on my part could be solved by changing the name of the new position. It isn't really a civility buddy's part to be screening posts as a requirement of posting anyway. That's hardly a "buddy". If the name of the new position were changed to civility screener, or civility checker, or civility editor, or parole officer, I'd quit being upset about that part of it.
>
> The same thing happened with the Council. At first it seemed that Dr. Bob was describing a parole board. Where after a portion of a block was served, the board could be contacted by those posters willing to take the responsibility of living by site guidelines and arrange for a way for those posters to come back to the community early. I've always thought willingness to abide by site guidelines was a better judge of whether someone should come back than the passage of time.
>
> Then it started to sound like appeals court. Where Dr. Bob's decisions could be overturned and his blocks deemed unjustified. That is something different entirely. The first involves helping posters return in a way where they take responsibility for their posting. The second is about Dr. Bob and his judgments. The second is substituting the judgments of the council for the judgments of Dr. Bob.
>
> I am for the former but against the latter.
>
> I hope that clarifies *my* change of attitude. It has nothing to do with personalities and everything to do with beliefs.That's how I feel about it too.
Also, I felt as if a volunteer position all of a sudden became a political position, and I know 1) I'd lose 2) I couldn't take that, and 3) the spirit of volunteering was quickly run out of the job before it ever coalesced.
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.