![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 221 to 245 of 257. Go back in thread:
Posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 7:05:29
In reply to Re: communicating, posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 3:44:22
I ceased reading administrative posts addressed to me about two weeks ago because I knew that I would find them very insulting and hurtful. It's a simple matter to do the same with yours.
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:19:15
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 3:42:16
Alex - you are so much fun to read. You can find needles in haystacks like no one else - and you have a way of turning things on their heads that entertains me endlessly.
> > I don't think he treats people here like patients at all.
>
> You think he suggests that colleagues and friends who disagree with him are acting from their pathology?There are a couple of things here that I'm not sure fit my statement.
Deneb said she thought he treats people here like patients. I said I don't think he does trhat at all. I'm not sure that not treating us like patients = treating us like his friends and colleagues. I think there's an enormous difference between patients, an online bunch of folks you've never met who post on a website forum you created, and ones friends and colleagues. Gosh - I think there's a big difference between friends and colleagues!
Maybe my life experience has characteristics that affect my perceptions. I have two close MD friends who are in the "10 Top Docs" thingy. One is a specialist in infectious diseases (as in third world countries). The other is a renowned psychiatrist whose name I would not want to reveal. He is well-published, and has traveled the world speaking at conferences about the area he specializes in. Weird for me to think about - because I rarely do - but I googled his name while writing this and nearly fell over at the overhwhelming volume of stuff on him. He's quoted everywhere. Weird to remember that he has this professional life. These relationships were forged by our each parenting children with similar disabilities.. in the same school. My kid very close to each of their kids. For 112-13 yrs. now. Lots of intertwining of our lives in a million different ways. My psychiatrist friend and I never talk about his work - but if I have a question about my kid's meds and want what I consider to be the *best* consult - who do you think I discuss it with? The vast majority of the time, though - I am completely out-of-touch with their professional personas. They are both brilliant - Yale/Stanford guys. Waaay smarter than me. Maybe that's why it *works*. I know them as people - and rarely think of 'who' they are professionally. We're just parents of kids with serious issues, and have shared our daily - weekly - yearly struggles coping together. We've shared tears - and we've shared the excitement of our kids' progress that parents of 'typical' kids wouldn't even notice. When we get together for a Memorial Day bar-b-q and I bring the ribs - and my psychiatrist friend grills - and we swim with the kids - and are immersed in the environment we create together - the gentle accommodations we make for the disabilities of each others' kids - we're just some people who have bonded over a painful part of life that we share. My heart is moved by the compassion they show my kid - and I'm guessing that my instinctive compassionate responses to their kids moves them as well. There are no professional achievements (or lack of achievements) that mean anything when you are simply observing another parent taking the time and love to care for your kid - a kid who rarely experiences 'fitting in.' What these guys 'do' (and maybe my comparative lack of achievement) is not easy to remember in those times... because all I see is their relationship with my kid.. and all they see is my relationship with theirs. Everything else pales in comparison.
So my life experience may make it harder for me to be suspicious of MD's in general - including the profession of psychiatry. A close friend of mine happens to be one - one whose name is well known in the field... but to me he's just a friend.
As for Bob - to me he's just a website adminstrator, who is also a psychiatrist, probably a husband, maybe a parent, and likely has plenty of friends that he relies on for support. He will react to to things here from his own life experience - which includes his cultural background, his education, his profession. Just like me. And just like you.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:25:24
In reply to Re: communicating, posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 3:44:22
Twinleaf - - I think Alex was doing a tongue-in-cheek thing here regarding Bob. She's being hard on him here, in her side-ways kinda way of doing that. I don't think what she says here has anything to do with you at all. It may not have occurred to Alex that you might not have seen the thread she's referring to - and as a result she didn't anticipate that you would not know how to interpret it the way she meant it.
I'll leave it to Alex to 'xplain what she meant. :-)
Solstice
>
> > However, any block I get now will be for a year. So in order for me to continue as a regular poster, and not just as an occasional advocate for change here on Administration, I urgently need a more moderate blocking policy to be in place.
>
> But that would be to bypass the whole 'and what does a blocking mean to you' process thing. And even if you do get blocked for ages perhaps it will benefit you by helping you to 'move on' (something that was suggested in another thread).
>
> fun and games with - oh i mean for bob.
>
> indeed.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 11:54:22
In reply to Re: hurtful communications, posted by twinleaf on December 13, 2010, at 7:05:29
> I ceased reading administrative posts addressed to me about two weeks ago because I knew that I would find them very insulting and hurtful. It's a simple matter to do the same with yours.
I didn't know that you stopped reading them for that reason or I wouldn't have used Bobisms in a post to you.
Sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 11:59:23
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:19:15
> Maybe my life experience has characteristics that affect my perceptions. I have two close MD friends who are in the "10 Top Docs" thingy.Oh. Why didn't you say so before? Well that is it then, you win. Your experiences clearly grant you special insight into the nature of the situation here.
Posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 12:29:27
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference.... » Solstice, posted by alexandra_k on December 13, 2010, at 11:59:23
>
> > Maybe my life experience has characteristics that affect my perceptions. I have two close MD friends who are in the "10 Top Docs" thingy.
>
> Oh. Why didn't you say so before? Well that is it then, you win. Your experiences clearly grant you special insight into the nature of the situation here.I think you may have misunderstood. There isn't any 'winning.' And I have insight - but it's not 'special.' It's just mine. And my perceptions of what goes on is influenced by my life experiences - just like yours is influenced by yours. I was trying to provide background into what affects my perceptions.
No offense was meant, and I'm sorry that offense was taken.
I really like you Alex. A lot.
Solstice
Posted by Deneb on December 13, 2010, at 16:10:40
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 13, 2010, at 11:19:15
> Deneb said she thought he treats people here like patients. I said I don't think he does trhat at all. I'm not sure that not treating us like patients = treating us like his friends and colleagues. I think there's an enormous difference between patients, an online bunch of folks you've never met who post on a website forum you created, and ones friends and colleagues. Gosh - I think there's a big difference between friends and colleagues!
I'm just think that because of what Dr. Bob tweeted, that is why I brought up the patient thing. He tweeted: "Engage in patient communities like you'd engage a patient in person".
What do you think it means? Maybe I misunderstood his tweet. Maybe engage doesn't mean what I think it means here.
Posted by solstice on December 13, 2010, at 18:32:09
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Deneb on December 13, 2010, at 16:10:40
I don`t follow his tweets - but I don`t know, Deneb. I`d be surprised if he meant it like you`re wondering, because I think he`s made it clear that he does Not intend to establish dr/pt dynamics with people here. Maybe he meant that if a psychiatrist is going to walk into a patient community wearing his/her `I am a psychiatrist tag` - then they should be prepared to behave with the same professional integrity that they would hold themselves to in a one-on-one relationship with their own patients. To know for sure what he meant, you`d have to ask him directly.
Solstice
Posted by muffled on December 13, 2010, at 23:25:29
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by solstice on December 13, 2010, at 18:32:09
> I don`t follow his tweets - but I don`t know, Deneb. I`d be surprised if he meant it like you`re wondering, because I think he`s made it clear that he does Not intend to establish dr/pt dynamics with people here. Maybe he meant that if a psychiatrist is going to walk into a patient community wearing his/her `I am a psychiatrist tag` - then they should be prepared to behave with the same professional integrity that they would hold themselves to in a one-on-one relationship with their own patients. To know for sure what he meant, you`d have to ask him directly.
>
> Solstice*yep, I think thats a one for Bob to answer...
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 9:04:47
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2010, at 3:39:09
> 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.
Would you consider these candidates elected or self-appointed (as opposed to Bob-appointed)? Do you think self-appointed candidates would be embraced by the community as "elected"?
For that matter, I haven't noticed in real politics that election leads to a lack of divisiveness. Or that candidates and their supporters, upon losing, feel great confidence in the elected. Or work with them in harmony.
It would certainly be interesting for an observer to see how the dynamics work out. Although, given the current size of Babble, and the small number of people active on Admin, perhaps not as interesting as it would have been a few years ago.
Posted by Willful on December 14, 2010, at 14:31:38
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 9:04:47
One important difference between elections in the so called real world and elections on Babble is that elections in small communities of people who know one another are very different from those in large, fragmented and polarized communities. I would expect there to be much more confidence in people elected here than those in our country at large.
Also, I don't see people who run to be elected to the Council as "politicians" as that word has come to be used pejoratively. We would just be people here who want to help out on blocks and who have the respect and confidence of the community to do so.
Process considerations are terribly important. I don't see people who are elected, even if there aren't a plethora of candidates to be "self-appointed." Anyone who is unhappy with the composition of the candidate slate is free to run. Running may mean giving some idea of how you see the situation here, or perhaps not. How often or how council members would change, and so forth, I'm not sure has been worked out.
But I somehow feel that the process point is very important in the legitimacy of the council. I suppose it if happens, we'll all see how it's accepted.
I also wanted to mention, that even during the facebook problem, Bob not only made it easier to opt out, but in response to poster pressure, put opt out icons on every post. Many of his attempts to respond to our unhappiness are not acknowledged and taken account of. I realize that people are extremely angry about the blocks, which are the one area where his concessions have been limited. But as Solstice has pointed out, even here he has made concessions.
I personally find his questions about peoples' supposed "childhood" reasons for their response to him unhelpful, as they do seem a infantilizing, as if our legitimate objections can be reduced merely to unresolved childhood trauma etc. However, I also believe that too much focus on what seem to be Bob's maladroit way of presenting and handling some issues here-- which I think are not due to ill will but are simply not attuned to our perspective-- are overemphasized. Yes they are disturbing, and sometimes, as in the facebook debacle quite hurtful to Babble. Buts for me, so far, they don't overshadow the importance of the Bob, and Bob's contribution in sponsoring and managing Babble at all.
I don't by the way see Bob as having all the power. Of course, he does have the ultimate ability to run things. Yet within the scope that he leaves free, there is a lot of room for us to make choices about what kind of place this will be, and how we individually and collectively, will shape it.
Willful
Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 14:57:42
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Willful on December 14, 2010, at 14:31:38
Wow, Willful. I wish there was a way to ensure everybody reads what you wrote here.
Solstice
> One important difference between elections in the so called real world and elections on Babble is that elections in small communities of people who know one another are very different from those in large, fragmented and polarized communities. I would expect there to be much more confidence in people elected here than those in our country at large.> Also, I don't see people who run to be elected to the Council as "politicians" as that word has come to be used pejoratively. We would just be people here who want to help out on blocks and who have the respect and confidence of the community to do so.
> Process considerations are terribly important. I don't see people who are elected, even if there aren't a plethora of candidates to be "self-appointed." Anyone who is unhappy with the composition of the candidate slate is free to run. Running may mean giving some idea of how you see the situation here, or perhaps not. How often or how council members would change, and so forth, I'm not sure has been worked out.
> But I somehow feel that the process point is very important in the legitimacy of the council. I suppose it if happens, we'll all see how it's accepted.
> I also wanted to mention, that even during the facebook problem, Bob not only made it easier to opt out, but in response to poster pressure, put opt out icons on every post. Many of his attempts to respond to our unhappiness are not acknowledged and taken account of. I realize that people are extremely angry about the blocks, which are the one area where his concessions have been limited. But as Solstice has pointed out, even here he has made concessions.> I personally find his questions about peoples' supposed "childhood" reasons for their response to him unhelpful, as they do seem a infantilizing, as if our legitimate objections can be reduced merely to unresolved childhood trauma etc. However, I also believe that too much focus on what seem to be Bob's maladroit way of presenting and handling some issues here-- which I think are not due to ill will but are simply not attuned to our perspective-- are overemphasized. Yes they are disturbing, and sometimes, as in the facebook debacle quite hurtful to Babble. Buts for me, so far, they don't overshadow the importance of the Bob, and Bob's contribution in sponsoring and managing Babble at all.
> I don't by the way see Bob as having all the power. Of course, he does have the ultimate ability to run things. Yet within the scope that he leaves free, there is a lot of room for us to make choices about what kind of place this will be, and how we individually and collectively, will shape it.> Willful
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 15:51:42
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Willful on December 14, 2010, at 14:31:38
It's amazing how different people can have such differing experiences on the same board.
Posted by Solstice on December 14, 2010, at 17:27:04
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2010, at 15:51:42
> It's amazing how different people can have such differing experiences on the same board.
Makes perfect sense to me! ;-)
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 0:16:05
In reply to real relationships vs. transference...., posted by twinleaf on December 12, 2010, at 21:02:18
> It is obviously very convenient for Bob to consider every critical comment, and every offered solution, to be based, not on the posters' intelligence and creativity, but on some hypothetical transference distortion left over from childhood.
Hi, everyone,
I'd like twinleaf to remain an active member of the Babble community. I'd like to ask those of you who feel the same way to encourage her to avoid another block by rephrasing or apologizing. Perhaps you could also volunteer to help her avoid future blocks by being her civility buddy:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#buddies
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 1:49:59
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:37:04
> A difference to me that's even bigger than the ability to un-elect Council, is that Council will not be involved in issuing blocks.
>
> I don't think the value of 'durability' is essential enough to merit insisting on it in this particular community
>
> I think it's important for you, Bob, to take a closer look at whether it really is necessary to have Council members put in place by election.
>
> my proposal that the community privately send you their nominations - and then you see which five gets the most nominations, and then you approach those folks and ask if they are willing to serve
>
> The community wants relief from unreasonably long blocks. The community seems to want to have a Council. A lot of hurt people have come back to see if it really is possible for you to transfer some power to the community. There are people who have said they would be willing to serve on a Council. I don't think you can honestly believe that the majority of this community wants you to, as King, keep issuing unreasonably long blocks. The community's unwillingness to campaign is not a statement about your kinginess.
>
> Solstice> and , no doubt, for some...anger at a system that is perceived to be unjust to most, yet Bob just cannot seem to see that.
> So ya, people are being careful, and are on edge, for GOOD reason I'd say....
>
> muffled> I really do think that the healthiest thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt... to assume they mean no harm - unless they really show us that they mean harm. And I mean *real* harm.
>
> SolsticeSolstice, I agree, not blocking posters is another big difference. I think your proposal is creative: people would vote by nominating, and there would only be write-in candidates. My concern is that it would be inefficient to consider and to nominate/vote for posters who aren't willing to serve.
Who's said they're willing to?
I honestly believe that voting against change is voting for the status quo. It might be healthy to give others the benefit of the doubt, but for whatever reason, people sometimes don't, and perceive systems to be unjust, and feel angry.
That anger is one reason I think being "durable" is advisable and agree with muffled, posters should be careful about accepting power. It's safer to let the buck stop with me.
Bob
Posted by twinleaf on December 19, 2010, at 9:15:31
In reply to Re: opportunity to support twinleaf, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 0:16:05
I apologize. I wanted to clarify what I felt was an obstacle to good communicating, but I see that it came out as blaming. I will try to restate: At times Bob interprets our critical comments as being due to negative childhood experiences rather than to competent adult problem-solving.
Posted by violette on December 19, 2010, at 11:46:08
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 22:01:16
> but.. maybe it's also a reflection of his training and work becoming embedded in his thinking. I know that my traning and work is embedded in how I relate to people.
Solstice, I'm totally lost on this one. I thought Dr. Bob was a psychatrist-I did not know he was a psychoanalyst too-is he/are you Bob? My experience with most psychiatrists is that they didn't focus on psychology, but have an education in biochemistry, how the brain and body works etc. and understand symptoms in terms of cognitive function as opposed to object relations. My psychiatrist went to school for at least 4 more years for his psychoanalytic studies after he completed his psychiatry education and residency/MD. I always viewed Dr. Bob as a behavioralist, at least from what I have seen on this forum, rather than someone who understands transference and object relations.
> Maybe it makes some of you feel the way you did when you were a child.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971715.html
I dont' recall a psychoanalyst ever stating something so simplistic as this during the course of psychoanalytic therapy. But - this is interesting to me becaues my perspective of Dr. Bob is totally different (at least in some respects) than the perspectives of both you and Twinleaf. Of course we are all different, so that would be expected...still interesting. I think Bob is more behavioral oriented, and his semi-frequent posts about our childhood seem totally out of context to me in terms of Bob's stated ideals and other philosphies he displays here.
Posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 11:46:53
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 1:49:59
> Solstice, I agree, not blocking posters is another big difference. I think your proposal is creative: people would vote by nominating, and there would only be write-in candidates. My concern is that it would be inefficient to consider and to nominate/vote for posters who aren't willing to serve.
My proposal would definitely be less efficient than campaigning and holding elections outright. However, campaigns and elections end up being the most inefficient of all if it can't seat a council. I think nominations would result in a seated council. Campaigns and elections won't.
> Who's said they're willing to?Oh gosh - now you're gonna make me hunt for it in all the aposts about it? If I remember correctly, Dinah has said something that sounded to me like she would be willing to serve if she could do so without having to do it by campaigns and elections. There have been others - I think maybe one is Sigi? Anyway - maybe when I get to my holiday destination I'll have time to do a search and look for it. But the point is - if you announce - say "January is nominations month. We need a Council. Everyone send me the five names you would like to see as members of Community Council during the month of January." Perhaps you could set it up to to a specific email account. Maybe ask that only the five names be put in the email. Maybe have a student do the tallying for you. Although there will likely be lots of names that are isolated, a pattern of the names that get a lot of nominations should be very clear. Although there *might* be a few of them that for various reasons want to pass - I think you will find five who are willing to do it pretty quickly.
> I honestly believe that voting against change is voting for the status quo.I know you do - but I think that it might be narrow-minded to apply it across the board. I think the status quo here is very distressing to the Community. And I don't think that being unwilling to serve on Council by campaign and elections is equal to "voting against change." Those are generalizations that don't leave any room for the specific dynamics that are creating the problem. This community wants change. The community has politely requested it, and has demanded it, over an extended period of time. But it is imperative that you honor the characteristics of this Community that make campaigns and elections problematic. To not let consideration of those things weigh heavily would be unkind, in my view.
> It might be healthy to give others the benefit of the doubt, but for whatever reason, people sometimes don't, and perceive systems to be unjust, and feel angry.
>
> That anger is one reason I think being "durable" is advisableI am certain that it's possible for there to be, at times, discontent with Council decisions about shortening blocks - but since Council doesn't make the rules or enforce them, I think you might be taking reactions to your administrative actions and erroneously believing that they will apply to Council as well. I think the chance of that is so slim that it's not even worth considering.
Some of the fear and angst you've read about Council, I believe, comes more from the lack of clarity inherent in putting something like this together. Alot of folks likely skim through this stuff and aren't sure what Council means. Once Council is in place, is operating, and enough time has passed for everyone to have a clearer understanding of Council's responsibilities and limitations - I think the fear and angst will diminish considerably.
> and agree with muffled, posters should be careful about accepting power.of course - but Bob - are you encouraging them to be so careful that they just don't take the chance of finding out how it will be? That doesn't even seem reasonable. Thing is - that at the very bottom of it is the fact that this is all volunteer. If it turns out to be impossible - if Council is mistreated to the point that it's unbearable - then they can quit! No one is required to stay here. So it really doesn't make sense to me that people taking Council positions should lay awake at night worrying about having the power to shorten blocks. It kind of surprises me that you would suggest it. And further - I don't think Muffled meant it quite like you're suggesting here. I think Muff's angst has been rooted in the uncertainties. And her sensitivity to uncertainties is understandably higher than most other's angst about uncertainties.
> It's safer to let the buck stop with me.It might be safer to let the buck stop with you when it comes to issuing blocks, etc. But it is decidedly NOT safer to let the buck stop with you with respect to the LENGTH of blocks. It has caused a lot of disruption for you to be holding that last buck - and I think the majority of the community would be happy for there to be a Council of Community members who can, by majority vote, shorten unreasonably long blocks.
Solstice
Posted by Solstice on December 19, 2010, at 11:52:50
In reply to Re: real relationships vs. transference...., posted by violette on December 19, 2010, at 11:46:08
Violette - I think I was referring to his education, training, and work giving him a saturated exposure to anything and everything 'psych'. Some ideas, of course, will be more salient for him than others. Point is, that his tendency to say things that are transferential is more likely due to that overexposure rather than him trying to create a dr./pt dynamic, etc.
Solstice
> > but.. maybe it's also a reflection of his training and work becoming embedded in his thinking. I know that my traning and work is embedded in how I relate to people.
>
> Solstice, I'm totally lost on this one. I thought Dr. Bob was a psychatrist-I did not know he was a psychoanalyst too-is he/are you Bob? My experience with most psychiatrists is that they didn't focus on psychology, but have an education in biochemistry, how the brain and body works etc. and understand symptoms in terms of cognitive function as opposed to object relations. My psychiatrist went to school for at least 4 more years for his psychoanalytic studies after he completed his psychiatry education and residency/MD. I always viewed Dr. Bob as a behavioralist, at least from what I have seen on this forum, rather than someone who understands transference and object relations.
>
> > Maybe it makes some of you feel the way you did when you were a child.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971715.html
>
> I dont' recall a psychoanalyst ever stating something so simplistic as this during the course of psychoanalytic therapy. But - this is interesting to me becaues my perspective of Dr. Bob is totally different (at least in some respects) than the perspectives of both you and Twinleaf. Of course we are all different, so that would be expected...still interesting. I think Bob is more behavioral oriented, and his semi-frequent posts about our childhood seem totally out of context to me in terms of Bob's stated ideals and other philosphies he displays here.
Posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 12:32:57
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 1:49:59
> > my proposal that the community privately send you their nominations - and then you see which five gets the most nominations, and then you approach those folks and ask if they are willing to serve
> >
> > The community wants relief from unreasonably long blocks. The community seems to want to have a Council. A lot of hurt people have come back to see if it really is possible for you to transfer some power to the community. There are people who have said they would be willing to serve on a Council. I don't think you can honestly believe that the majority of this community wants you to, as King, keep issuing unreasonably long blocks. The community's unwillingness to campaign is not a statement about your kinginess.
> >
> > Solstice> > So ya, people are being careful, and are on edge, for GOOD reason I'd say....
> >
> > muffled
>
> > I really do think that the healthiest thing to do is to give people the benefit of the doubt... to assume they mean no harm - unless they really show us that they mean harm. And I mean *real* harm.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> Solstice, I agree, not blocking posters is another big difference. I think your proposal is creative: people would vote by nominating, and there would only be write-in candidates. My concern is that it would be inefficient to consider and to nominate/vote for posters who aren't willing to serve.
>
> Who's said they're willing to?
>
> I honestly believe that voting against change is voting for the status quo. It might be healthy to give others the benefit of the doubt, but for whatever reason, people sometimes don't, and perceive systems to be unjust, and feel angry.
>
> That anger is one reason I think being "durable" is advisable and agree with muffled, posters should be careful about accepting power. It's safer to let the buck stop with me.
>
> Bob*LOL, Bob!!! How many times have I said I do not trust YOUR judgement Bob?????!!!!! So I for one am not necc. happy to have th buck stop w/you...however, you ARE the owner of this site, and somehow, somewhere, I keep feeling that maybe you are not horrible..., so ya, ultimately the buck has yo stop w/someone, and obvo then that has to be you...
I guess the main thing I would like to say here is...
1. Ya, heck I'd run for council.....IF I felt I could work with the operator of this site. But I can't, cuz I don't underasand him, and I don't agree w/how he is running things....so I cannot align myself with him unless I know he is willing to change some things I feel are off base(IMHO).
I think this is where there is reluctance on the part of anyone to run for council, at least part of it, is that they don't agree w/Bob, and he won't really budge much....For me there is ALOT of shame and humiliation with this public blocking/punishment. And I don't think it's often actually neccessary to actually get to the point of a block.
I think KEY, is warning FIRST(every time...), after a reasonable period to see if posters even care, or if they care about the supposed 'infraction', that they have a chance to work it out.
I think that yes, blocks ARE sometimes necc. But not long ones. Maybe repeated short ones and if they keep happening, then it needs to be looked at.But ATM, IMHO, this place feels too punitive and unpredicatable to me.
I think a council would help 4sure.
BUT,
I think the blocking parameters need to be looked at first and hashed out....
Maybe Bob would be willing to have another chat w/a few selected interested parties so that we would have the opportunity to see his views, and if Bob would try and open his mind and see ours.....So I suppose in my way, I am just as rigid as Bob, but I have reasoning behind my thots, and I know that many here agree with some of what I say. I think more are leaning towards my way of thinking than Bobs....
I dunno if ANYbody is fully aligned w/Bobs way of thinking...
So what does this say to you Bob? Are you Omniscient and know more than everyone? or maybe should you listen to your people?
Cuz your way apparently hasn't been working too well.....
People will help you, but you gonna have to work 'with' them, not over them.om·ni·scient adj \-shənt\
Definition of OMNISCIENT
1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledgeSo, once again, this is nothing personal to you Bob, but about how this site is run. I too would like to see it be more successful.
And tech wise, its GREAT!
Thx
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 19, 2010, at 15:09:56
In reply to Re: opportunity to support twinleaf, posted by twinleaf on December 19, 2010, at 9:15:31
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2010, at 12:31:07
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by muffled on December 19, 2010, at 12:32:57
Regarding blocks:
> I have always felt that it would be more transparent of Bob to just block some people for life than to use the formula in the way it has been used. Which is, establishing an precedent via a PBC and then ratcheting up the penalties until you are at the year long block.
>
> sigismundThat would be more transparent if my intent were to block people for life. But that's not my intent -- and of course not what I do. Whether that would be better is a different question.
> I remember when 'The Formula' was first being discussed. I was SO happy cuz I thot it meant the blocks would be less.
> Sigh, NOT.
> I don't understand it, the formula, I just don't.
> I like things simple...
>
> muffledSigh is right!
1. Blocks are shorter. The idea of the formula is to take into account "periods of good behaviour":
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070605/msgs/766717.html
which only shortens blocks. To see how much, enter zero for "period of time since end of previous block" in the block length calculator:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Taking that into account did make the formula more complicated. I tried to make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. :-)
2. And there are fewer blocks now:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/947061.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969738.html--
Regarding the council:
> > Thanks, would you consider serving on some kind of Elders Council?
>
> Goodness!
>
> That would mean I'd have to stand in an election?
> No negative campaigning?
> Better still, no campaigning at all!
> (I can see the advantage of that.)
> But then committee meetings, or things like them....
>
> I'd consider it, yes, Bob.
>
> sigismundThanks! I appreciate that. I hadn't seen this when I posted before.
Yes, you'd have to stand in an election. It would be up to you whether to campaign.
> for thise willing to 'run' for a council....bless their hearts, do they know what they are getting into???
> I would think they need to have a good sense of what they are getting into. I don't want to see any posters hurt whilst just trying to help out.....
> I think it would be good to have some registered 'chats' with those willing to be on the committee(just them), so that they can discuss ramifications etc ahead of time, and see if they even have the time or desire to work w/the others.
>
> muffledThis is something new, so it's hard for any of us to know what exactly we're getting into. I'm glad we're thinking it through to clarify as much as possible beforehand. I'd be happy to chat with candidates. Or to set up a chat for just candidates. The first election will be the hardest because there's more uncertainty and therefore more anxiety. After the council's in place and things are working, what being a council member entails will be clearer. The first council would be pioneers.
> blocked posters won't be posting - so their ability to lash out is very limited. In fact, maybe all their communications with Council should take place in the chat room - in a room designed to hold the messages for all council members to see - and even for Bob to see.
>
> SolsticeRegarding "things like committee meetings", that's a good point, council members may find it a challenge to work with each other. We see that in other elected bodies. One issue they might (or might not) want to decide is whether to insist on civility to each other.
Speaking of civility, another issue might be what to do if a council member receives a block and asks for it to be lifted. In addition to a mailing list that includes all of them, they might want ad hoc mailing lists that include only some of them.
My inclination would be for them to decide internal matters like they decide about lifting blocks: with a quorum of 3 and majority rule.
> So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
>
> 10derheartI could implement a new system for them, but probably I'd confirm that they followed their procedures (had a quorum, voted, and posted their votes and decision) and then do any unblocking myself.
> I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
> All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part
>
> muffledYou can catch more flies with honey than with a mallet. :-)
> This all sounds very promising. I would agree - if we get a Council with the power to modify blocks of cooperative posters who ask, that should give us what we need. Possibly, if that works well, the very long blocks, and the formula that determines them, may become obsolete. Bob might develop confidence in the workings of the Council, and gradually allow the older way of doing things to lapse. We can't be sure, of course, but effective change probably means choosing the most important thing, getting that in place, and then seeing other aspects of the situation change and adapt.
>
> twinleafThat's the idea, thank you for seeing and expressing it.
> I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.
>
> muffledYes, it can be very hard to ask. Asking is being vulnerable. Not asking is being safe.
Hmm, standing for election could be considered asking for votes/support/validation. So this might be one reason some posters don't feel safe doing that.
> it's not about refuting his decisions. It's about a blocked poster having a chance, after having been blocked, to demonstrate to council that they are willing to abide by civility guidelines.
>
> SolsticeJust to be clear, I'd leave it up to the council to decide how to decide. I wouldn't say they needed to consider willingness to abide by the guidelines. But they'd be free to do that if they wanted.
> All I recall Dr. Bob saying about minimums is that real parole boards base it on a percent of time served.
>
> DinahWe wouldn't need to do it the same way, and I'm still open to input, but FYI, I looked around a little and found:
> > truth in sentencing legislation required federal prisoners to serve 85 percent of their sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_board#United_States
> I am certain that it's possible for there to be, at times, discontent with Council decisions about shortening blocks - but since Council doesn't make the rules or enforce them, I think you might be taking reactions to your administrative actions and erroneously believing that they will apply to Council as well. I think the chance of that is so slim that it's not even worth considering.
>
> > posters should be careful about accepting power.
>
> are you encouraging them to be so careful that they just don't take the chance of finding out how it will be? ... at the very bottom of it is the fact that this is all volunteer. If it turns out to be impossible - if Council is mistreated to the point that it's unbearable - then they can quit!
>
> SolsticeI'm not the only one who believes there might be anger at council members. I encourage posters to consider taking a chance, but with the awareness that that's what they'd be doing. Some posters are risk-averse, and I wouldn't want to mislead them.
> I for one am not necc. happy to have th buck stop w/you...however, you ARE the owner of this site, and somehow, somewhere, I keep feeling that maybe you are not horrible..., so ya, ultimately the buck has yo stop w/someone, and obvo then that has to be you...
>
> Ya, heck I'd run for council.....IF I felt I could work with the operator of this site. But I can't, cuz I don't underasand him, and I don't agree w/how he is running things....so I cannot align myself with him unless I know he is willing to change some things I feel are off base(IMHO).
>
> So I suppose in my way, I am just as rigid as Bob, but I have reasoning behind my thots, and I know that many here agree with some of what I say.
>
> So, once again, this is nothing personal to you Bob, but about how this site is run. I too would like to see it be more successful.
>
> MThanks, others may also consider me "maybe not horrible" enough to prefer the status quo. :-)
The primary task of the council would be to give the community a way to override decisions of mine, so I'd hardly see them as "aligned" with me.
But there would be some working with me. I'd confirm that they followed their procedures, and it would probably be up to me to actually unblock posters. Some conditions, like a mandatory civility buddy or delayed posting, would require new features that I'd need to implement.
Their secondary task would definitely involve dealing with me. I'd value their input even if we disagreed -- input doesn't help if someone always agrees with you -- so again, I wouldn't see them as "aligned" with me. But they should be aware that we might disagree and I might not to do what they advise. I'd also have reasoning behind my thoughts.
I think most of us want this site to be more successful. I think a community council would be a step forward. If you do, too, I invite you to join me in being that change.
Bob
Posted by muffled on December 21, 2010, at 13:32:04
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2010, at 12:31:07
> > I don't understand it, the formula, I just don't.
> > I like things simple...
> >
> > muffled
>
> Sigh is right!
>
> 1. Blocks are shorter. The idea of the formula is to take into account "periods of good behaviour":
> Taking that into account did make the formula more complicated. I tried to make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. :-)*Sometimes simple is best. Then its clear and understandable to all.
> 2. And there are fewer blocks now:*Indeed fewer blocks. I agree. But the fear :(, the main prob is twofold. The length is still too long(and the formula confusing). And, ugh, my brain is in low gear...and I guess a combo of the inexplicablness of them combined with the shock factor at being upbraided for something one does not even understand...and others don't either. THAT is where the anger comes in FYI....
> Regarding the council:
> This is something new, so it's hard for any of us to know what exactly we're getting into. I'm glad we're thinking it through to clarify as much as possible beforehand. I'd be happy to chat with candidates. Or to set up a chat for just candidates. The first election will be the hardest because there's more uncertainty and therefore more anxiety. After the council's in place and things are working, what being a council member entails will be clearer. The first council would be pioneers.*Oh God...PIONEERS!!! OMG!!! My inner child DANCES!!! she LOVES PIONEERS!!! OMG OMG!!! Ok....I digress LOL!
*Well FWIW I have been closely connected w/elections before, and I gotta tell those of you who choose to 'run', that seriously, it's no big deal really. Its win-win. Cuz if you don't get elected, you can breathe a big sigh of releif!!!! If you do...well, then there's that sinking feeling of'what did I get myself into????', ah...LOL, and an ego boost on the side LOL! But seriously, don't let it freak you out, elections are no big deal. Campaigning is NOT requiered. I was thinking maybe candidates could post a short post on a 'candidates' thread about why they are willing to do this job, and thats enuf.
I think a 'possible' candidates chat might be nice IMHO, but should be only open to those seriously considering to stand forward.
> Regarding "things like committee meetings", that's a good point, council members may find it a challenge to work with each other. We see that in other elected bodies. One issue they might (or might not) want to decide is whether to insist on civility to each other.* that above is so VERY Bob....you *are* consistant LOL!
I think they can sort that out for themselves...
> Speaking of civility, another issue might be what to do if a council member receives a block and asks for it to be lifted. In addition to a mailing list that includes all of them, they might want ad hoc mailing lists that include only some of them.*OK, you have lost me here....first one is obvo, it would take a majority of 3 to get that block lifted.
If members want to speak privately they can b-mail. Beyond that...it's just getting over complicated again...
> My inclination would be for them to decide internal matters like they decide about lifting blocks: with a quorum of 3 and majority rule.*To me that sounds reasonable as it's not always going to be possible to have everyone around all of the time. But again, that could be hashed out as 'details' for council to consider.
> > So Dr. Bob has specifically agreed he will grant all Council members access to the admin (software) tools the deputies had/have access to? Since that is the only way to "release" a block without waiting for him?
> I could implement a new system for them, but probably I'd confirm that they followed their procedures (had a quorum, voted, and posted their votes and decision) and then do any unblocking myself.*Well, Bob, once you have developed some trust in your council, probably you may well feel you could ease up some. My concern being that you are often not around...
> > I hate to sound like SUCH a negative pain here....but Bob is a friggin ROCK I say. Trying to make him chnge is like trying to chip away at a rock with a rubber mallet.
> > All I am seeing is alot of reluctance on Bobs part
> >
> > muffled
>
> You can catch more flies with honey than with a mallet. :-)*You WILL note that I DID say a *rubber* mallet???? I WAS being nice!! ;-)
> > This all sounds very promising. I would agree - if we get a Council with the power to modify blocks of cooperative posters who ask, that should give us what we need. Possibly, if that works well, the very long blocks, and the formula that determines them, may become obsolete. Bob might develop confidence in the workings of the Council, and gradually allow the older way of doing things to lapse. We can't be sure, of course, but effective change probably means choosing the most important thing, getting that in place, and then seeing other aspects of the situation change and adapt.
> >
> > twinleaf
>
> That's the idea, thank you for seeing and expressing it.*yep, well said.
> > I think its very commonly very hard for people to 'ask' for stuff. For parts of me to 'ask' is to expect to have something bad happen to me. I don't think I am alone in this. For parts, to ask is to beg. For parts to ask is far too much cuz who the f do I think I am, I am bad. etc etc I think this would be tough for MANY and they would just suffer in silence.
> >
> > muffled
>
> Yes, it can be very hard to ask. Asking is being vulnerable. Not asking is being safe.
>
> Hmm, standing for election could be considered asking for votes/support/validation. So this might be one reason some posters don't feel safe doing that.*oh yeah, I am the queen of safe. And at this point being vulnerable here is not an option, at least for most of me.
> > it's not about refuting his decisions. It's about a blocked poster having a chance, after having been blocked, to demonstrate to council that they are willing to abide by civility guidelines.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> Just to be clear, I'd leave it up to the council to decide how to decide. I wouldn't say they needed to consider willingness to abide by the guidelines. But they'd be free to do that if they wanted.*OK, so to be REAL clear on this...You Bob, would allow decisions by council to STAND, you will NOT override them???? Promise?
> > All I recall Dr. Bob saying about minimums is that real parole boards base it on a percent of time served.
> >
> > Dinah* I for one would still like Bob to state an actual figure of what a minimum block would be. SIMPLE numbers, not formulas. This is a HUGE point for me.
> > are you encouraging them to be so careful that they just don't take the chance of finding out how it will be? ... at the very bottom of it is the fact that this is all volunteer. If it turns out to be impossible - if Council is mistreated to the point that it's unbearable - then they can quit!
> >
> > Solstice
>
> I'm not the only one who believes there might be anger at council members. I encourage posters to consider taking a chance, but with the awareness that that's what they'd be doing. Some posters are risk-averse, and I wouldn't want to mislead them.*I am a little vague about what exactly happened for the deps. I do remember there seemed to be almost a jealousy? or something at times.
From my experience with people in 'positions', that those who stand to run, they more than likely WILL be treated differently. However, I think there CAN be a balance if one is steady, and holds true to who they are. Not easy, but doable. It will be different, but thats not always a bad thing.> > I for one am not necc. happy to have th buck stop w/you...however, you ARE the owner of this site, and somehow, somewhere, I keep feeling that maybe you are not horrible..., so ya, ultimately the buck has yo stop w/someone, and obvo then that has to be you...
> >
> > Ya, heck I'd run for council.....IF I felt I could work with the operator of this site. But I can't, cuz I don't underasand him, and I don't agree w/how he is running things....so I cannot align myself with him unless I know he is willing to change some things I feel are off base(IMHO).
> >
> > So I suppose in my way, I am just as rigid as Bob, but I have reasoning behind my thots, and I know that many here agree with some of what I say.
> >
> > So, once again, this is nothing personal to you Bob, but about how this site is run. I too would like to see it be more successful.
> >
> > M
>
> Thanks, others may also consider me "maybe not horrible" enough to prefer the status quo. :-)*Bob, you are patient with me...
Anyways...ARE those who are 'in the know' in fact happy with the staus quo??? I would say the majority are not. In my experience at a municipal level, people generally don't have a clue wassup in the background, and there is only an upswell of interest when something affects them directly. Its a small percentage of people who are more politically oriented in caring about 'the whole'. The rest are happy in their worlds.
And yes, I would run, as I have skills that I feel would be useful. BUT, some things need to made more clear before I would consider running.
> The primary task of the council would be to give the community a way to override decisions of mine, so I'd hardly see them as "aligned" with me.*so sorry to harp....but so you ARE saying their decisioons would stand?
> But there would be some working with me. I'd confirm that they followed their procedures, and it would probably be up to me to actually unblock posters. Some conditions, like a mandatory civility buddy or delayed posting, would require new features that I'd need to implement.*ewwww, we'd have to work with Bob???oh GROOOSSSS! LOL kidding! I am getting punchy and need to get back to my kids but I am really trying to get thu this long post...
> Their secondary task would definitely involve dealing with me. I'd value their input even if we disagreed -- input doesn't help if someone always agrees with you -- so again, I wouldn't see them as "aligned" with me. But they should be aware that we might disagree and I might not to do what they advise. I'd also have reasoning behind my thoughts.*UH OH!!! Now I see. I did read this thru B4 I posted, but I missed this. Or maybe I didn't. This was a very long post. I guess what I'd like to know....is if FIVE council members disaggreed w/you, and they had good reasons...well....geeze Bob, given your previous history....oh man, this could be the shortest council in history.... :( Might be salvageable if you gave *clear* reasoning....
> I think most of us want this site to be more successful. I think a community council would be a step forward. If you do, too, I invite you to join me in being that change.
>
> Bob* well, I for one still need more info.
I just think if you Bob, make the effort to make some sticking opoints really clear before this council goes ahead, it stands a MUCH greater chance of actually succeeding long term.
I just feel that if you are going to do something, then get your ducks in a row as much as possible first.
I know you to be a cagey one Bob, but it would be most beneficial IMHO if you were more transparent about certain issues that have been brought up as concerns, but that you have, as usual, kinda circled around them...
You and I are not so different in that we both seem to want to reach a broad range of people. Up to this point Bob....your success has been limited. Numbers have declined. If in fact you want greater numbers, then you are going to have to accept the knowledge of others here...
Just a question for you...WHY do you personally want greater numbers here? HONESTLY.?Whew....
My thots..
Gotta go, now I got BOTH my kids hassling me, the boy for FOOD, my daughter for crafts....
M
Posted by twinleaf on December 21, 2010, at 16:03:16
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 21, 2010, at 12:31:07
I'm not sure if "being the change" means actually volunteering for the Community Council or just giving it a vote of confidence, but, for the time being anyway, I would like to stick with giving it a very strong vote of confidence. I think it can go a long way towards improving communication and, especially, modifying the blocking policy in a favorable direction.. I can imagine what a great place this could be minus the intense resentment which long blocks and mangled communications can cause.
I understand that improving communication is not at present a stated Council function. However, I can envision the Council being very useful for that.
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.