![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 59. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
[from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020725/msgs/7083.html]
> Many of us have said this before, but I would like to see the boards moderated on an on-going basis by a group of well-seasoned participants, ideally one moderator and one back-up for each board (all of whom would be overseen by you, of course). For instance, Dinah might moderate the Psycho-Psycho-Babble board, and I could back her up.
>
> The boards have grown over the last two years to the point that the next phase of good management requires delegation. I believe that the only way for you to retain meaningful control overall is to delegate a majority of control of the day-to-day operations to participants.
>
> Two years ago, we were all in the same boat. Today, your lack of participation *as a community member* has become a hindrance to the smooth functioning of the boards. Most of us know far more about one another than we do about you. We have achieved a level of meaningful intimacy in our interactions over time here, yet our posts remain subject to the interventions of a non-participating moderator. It no longer feels right to have the list-owner "drop in" and censure participants based on a word or a few sentences that are too frequently taken out of context. For many of us, this lack of balance has become unacceptable.
>
> By passing the role of moderator to active participants on each board, maintenance of civility and good will becomes a peer effort. If the role of moderator is further shared with others (someone takes it for a period of time, then it passes to someone else), eventually, many of the regular participants will have experienced the responsibility and difficulty of board moderation and will have achieved a seasoned sense of when to intervene and when to let things work out on their own, which will make your job much easier.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark H.
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2002, at 9:23:22
In reply to moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
I'm afraid I have just the opposite viewpoint. I feel safer here because there is an independent monitor who isn't one of "us". It allows an objectivity that just wouldn't be available with peer moderation.
I've just been in too many organizations with cliques and those in leadership favoring friends and even when the leadership role changes (as in new presidents, etc.) there is much intrigue and unpleasantness involved in the changing of the guard. I'm not saying that anyone in particular would do it, just that it could happen. (And usually does in my own off-board experience).
I value this board precisely because of Dr. Bob's administrative role, and would probably not be so involved in a peer moderated group, as I would not feel as safe, and would feel more of a need to be self protective.
I do think, however, that since Dr. Bob is frequently off board for a couple of days at a time, that he should give a few people who are on board more frequently the ability to PBC or block really egregious examples of civility violations (a recent one involving Lost Boy was it? comes to mind. sorry to mention names.) That would nip some of those flash fires in the bud, since I still think people know when Dr. Bob's away and take advantage of it.
Just my own not so humble opinion, and recognizing that different set-ups would better suit the needs of different participants.
Dinah
Posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 11:46:47
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2002, at 9:23:22
Dinah, the only reason I'm disagreeing with you is because I'm comparing the board to what it was a few years ago. It was of course much smaller and all Dr. Bob would have to do was basically tell us to be more careful with our language so to avoid misunderstandings (and I just bet he had a whole lot more fun back then). I just see Mark's proposals as possibly bringing that order around again- by having responsible moderators who report directly to Dr. Bob (who would have the final say)- maybe give a summary of the situation to him? Take care, judy
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2002, at 12:11:48
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dinah, posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 11:46:47
Hi Judy, I wasn't then there of course, so I'm sure you know better than I. But looking through the archives I saw some hum-dinger examples of incivility. Dr. Bob did perhaps intervene less then, but I'm not sure that always worked well. And for better or worse, the board is bigger now.
Speaking as someone who's about to fill in for Dr. Bob, and is therefore thinking about such things, I do think Dr. Bob is right in saying that there is a tension between administration and support. First of all, I know it would be incredibly difficult for me to give one of my good friends a PBC or block if necessary. I would do it (wry smile), but it would be difficult. And it could lead to tensions in friendships.
Second, as it stands now, there are times when I can see a PBC coming from Dr. Bob, but I might understand the frustration or whatever behind the post. So I can stand back and let Dr. Bob deliver the PBC, while I can be supportive.
I don't know if this makes any sense, but it is a couple of the many reasons why I believe a board with an "outsider" monitor is a better idea, even if the moderators were under the supervision of Dr. Bob to prevent bias. And I do think Dr. Bob reads enough of the posts to get a general idea of what's going on.
Now I'm addressing this to you, but you know, you really shouldn't be reading it. :) You should be following your therapist's advice to stay away from the board until you feel stronger. I know it's hard to do, but there are times when it is necessary.
Take care,
Dinah
Posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 14:17:29
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » judy1, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2002, at 12:11:48
I shouldn't be reading (but I know you understand how difficult that is sometimes:-) I guess I wanted people to understand about safety more and try to think of ways to make this board a safer place. I completely understand your views and agree with some; I guess I don't have the confidence that you have that Dr. Bob has the time to go through all the posts and understand what is taking place in each of them. I don't think any one person does, and certainly not someone who has a full-time job. Take care, judy
Posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 14:24:58
In reply to You're right of course.. » Dinah, posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 14:17:29
You realize I hope, that I wouldn't be doing any of this if this board (the people on it) hadn't literally saved my life on more than one occasion and I desperately feel the need to give back- judy
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2002, at 14:36:03
In reply to P.S. from judy, posted by judy1 on August 8, 2002, at 14:24:58
I guess I did see how you were trying to give of yourself on the board, but I wasn't aware of how much the board had helped you.
I know we really all appreciate it Judy, but the most important thing is for you to keep yourself safe. You can contribute here when you feel strong enough and withdraw when you need to, or even completely if you have to. Or limit your participation.
I just want to see you safe for yourself and your kids. You are needed even more by them. So take care, Judy. Know you are appreciated here, but take care of yourself and your family.
Dinah
Posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
In reply to moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
Somehow I don't think ongoing participant moderators is a good idea. Just have a hunch it would create more conflict, and interfere with relationships among participants.
If Dr. Bob needs to add more moderators, it should be non-participants.
Posted by katekite on August 12, 2002, at 15:49:26
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
I can't get through all the messages every day, although I admit my purpose is to think and digest not to moderate, maybe I take a lot longer.
Yet, I simply don't see how a single person with any other job or committment can expect to do a reasonable job at moderating the whole site on a daily basis.
I'm amazed Dr. Bob can do as comprehensive a job as he does, but think as the site continues to grow he will be forced to moderate some other way (programs that scan for bad words? multiple other people?).
Kate
Posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
In reply to moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
Great discussion, even from those who disagree.
Another good reason for participant-moderators, in my opinion, is the increasing number and diversity of boards. While I'm very interested in psycho-psycho babble, for instance (and delighted that Dinah suggested it in the first place), I'm truly worn out when it comes to the meds board and have little time or interest to follow several of the other boards.
I think that any seasoned adult participant who accepts the responsibility of moderation quickly learns to balance personal allegiances with the need to maintain civility (participant safety and coherence, if you will). While it might be momentarily uncomfortable to ask an old friend to "please be civil," that very familiarity helps with recognizing and identifying incivility in the first place.
If this were my board, I would probably replace "please be civil" with "please be kind," which for me speaks more broadly and accurately to the needs of those of us with mental and emotional illnesses. So often our unkindness to others is an acting out of our own pain, and if we focus not so much on civility but on simply being kind to one another (and ourselves), perhaps we'd remember more often why it is we are here and there would be fewer conflicts.
In the end, I think it's a matter of trust. I admit that I trust any of probably two dozen regular participants here to serve as moderators, and I would gladly submit to their instructions and guidance. Whatever problems we may experience over time, I have met and enjoyed interactions with many truly great, well informed, kind and generous people on these boards. It is this experience borne out over time that has built my faith in the ability of participants to serve as safe and trustworthy moderators.
As always, thank you for considering my thoughts about this and for respecting our occasional differences of opinion.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by mair on August 28, 2002, at 20:07:33
In reply to Re: Participant Moderators and New Boards, posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
Posted by Phil on August 29, 2002, at 6:10:51
In reply to Re: Participant Moderators and New Boards, posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2002, at 22:11:24
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
> > Many of us have said this before, but I would like to see the boards moderated on an on-going basis by a group of well-seasoned participants
> >
> > The boards have grown over the last two years to the point that the next phase of good management requires delegation. I believe that the only way for you to retain meaningful control overall is to delegate a majority of control of the day-to-day operations to participants.
> >
> > Mark H.I do agree that some sort of delegation will be necessary, at least if there's going to be continued growth. And there are advantages to having participants moderate. But I'm afraid they might find it to be a burden or to interfere with asking for and receiving support themselves.
Dinah, how did it go for you? What do you think?
> I'm afraid I have just the opposite viewpoint. I feel safer here because there is an independent monitor who isn't one of "us". It allows an objectivity that just wouldn't be available with peer moderation.
> there are times when I can see a PBC coming from Dr. Bob, but I might understand the frustration or whatever behind the post. So I can stand back and let Dr. Bob deliver the PBC, while I can be supportive.
>
> Dinah> Somehow I don't think ongoing participant moderators is a good idea. Just have a hunch it would create more conflict, and interfere with relationships among participants.
>
> If Dr. Bob needs to add more moderators, it should be non-participants.
>
> tabi.T.haAnd of course there are advantages to having "non-participants" moderate, too. The problem is finding "non-participants" who are willing and able...
> I do think, however, that since Dr. Bob is frequently off board for a couple of days at a time, that he should give a few people who are on board more frequently the ability to PBC or block really egregious examples of civility violations
>
> DinahThat could be one step in the delegation direction, having an on-going "deputy" or two. In general or for specific boards...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2002, at 22:11:24
> I do agree that some sort of delegation will be necessary, at least if there's going to be continued growth. And there are advantages to having participants moderate. But I'm afraid they might find it to be a burden or to interfere with asking for and receiving support themselves.
>
> Dinah, how did it go for you? What do you think?
>
Hmm. It wasn't a problem short term, especially as no thorny situations came up, but it didn't change my overall view of participant moderators.I usually read most of the posts on all of the boards except the meds board, so that wasn't too much of a burden. But it sure was nice last night to go back to reading just the posts that caught my attention. It also was nice to go to sleep last night and to be able to go out this morning without having to worry that something was going to blow up while I was away. So yes, there is a burden involved. In fact Dr. Bob, I don't know how you do it long-term.
And yes, it did make me hesitate before asking for support. It would feel kind of weird to say on one board that I was having a total meltdown while expecting people to have faith in my administrative interventions somewhere else. More than asking for support though, it made it difficult to share opinions, especially on volatile threads. I had the feeling that if I expressed an opinion that went to one or the other side of the debate, that people would begin to wonder if my interventions had a bias.
And Tabitha is right, a participant moderator would have trouble maintaining supportive relationships on the board when things got unpleasant, as they do sometimes, and the moderator took an unpopular position. Of course, I've also found that to be true in my experience as a poster too. Those dear friends who can separate me from my occasionally unpopular opinions are greatly treasured.
So my opinion of participant moderators? I think it's impossible. I think that moderators would eventually become more and more moderators and less and less participants. Of course that might be okay for some people, and there might be posters who would rather be involved in an administrative capacity. Perhaps that would solve the problem.
I also think that there are many forums where participant moderators work very well, but I am wondering if those are closed forums where membership is limited to approved members....
Just my meandering thoughts. I'm sure there are more floating around somewhere in my mind.
I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.
You know Dr. Bob, I understand that you have an almost overwhelming task here, and I think it's great that you're willing to delegate. Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you. Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours. I'm sure there are lots of ideas that could help you out while maintaining the unique character of Babble, which is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?
Posted by mair on September 9, 2002, at 22:06:09
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
I'm not in any position to challenge Dinah's impressions of why using posters as moderators is a bad idea. She draws on personal experience. However, I don't think that the relative calm of the Board in Bob's absence can be dismissed simply as the result of there being no controversial threads. I think there were several threads that could have turned sour and didn't largely because of her gentle intervention.
I don't mean this as a criticism of Dr. Bob, but I think people on this Board are more apt to want to spare a poster/moderator alot of aggravation. We tend to take care of one another better than we do of Bob, and I think are sensitive to the difficulties facing a poster/moderator. Because Bob is not strictly one of "us," he seems to become a lightening rod for criticism about the Board. A poster/moderator is only a surrogate and is not in any position to act on the criticism of others. Also for reasons that are not altogether clear to me, Bob making the plea "I'm doing the best I can" holds no where near the same weight as a similar plea from a poster/moderator.
I can appreciate that it may be too much of a burden to impose on a poster to act as moderator. However I really dislike the idea of having other outside moderators. It seems to me that many of the criticisms lodged before involve situations where some people thought that statements Bob found objectionable were inappropriately taken out of context. It would be very difficult for an assisting outside moderator to have the same "feel" for the Board as does Bob or the more active posters.
My preference would be that Bob find a way to continue to incorporate posters as moderators, maybe not for such a long period of time or for as long as Dinah's recent term and not necessarily to the exclusion of Bob. The Board seemed to be in excellent hands both when Dinah acted as moderator and also when Mark stepped in - I think there are a lot of positives to using posters in this manner.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
> I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.
> Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours.
OK, let's say a deputy administrator will have the *option* of administrating, but won't be at all *obligated* to do so. And let's start with you and (if he's interested) Mark H., since you're the ones who have experience filling in for me. I don't know about "emergency", but how about if we consider a situation "pressing" if it's getting worse, ie, if the problem isn't just one post?
> Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you.
More ideas are of course welcome, and people are always free to email me about posts. It's fine to post something about them, too, but in that case extra care needs to be taken to be civil.
> Babble ... is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?
Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2002, at 22:50:03
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
> Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised? :-)
>
> BobHmm. perhaps we can consider it a working hypothesis, that can be revised as needed? In other words, I'm willing to try it, but won't be offended or upset if it doesn't work out as you had hoped.
Dinah
Posted by ~~Alii~~ on September 11, 2002, at 4:46:22
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
>>>>I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.<<<<---Dinah
>>>>Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours.<<<<---Dinah>>>>OK, let's say a deputy administrator will have the *option* of administrating, but won't be at all *obligated* to do so. And let's start with you and (if he's interested) Mark H., since you're the ones who have experience filling in for me. I don't know about "emergency", but how about if we consider a situation "pressing" if it's getting worse, ie, if the problem isn't just one post?<<<<---Doc. B.
>>>>Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you.<<<<---Dinah
>>>>More ideas are of course welcome, and people are always free to email me about posts. It's fine to post something about them, too, but in that case extra care needs to be taken to be civil.<<<<---Doc. B.
>>>> Babble ... is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?<<<<--Dinah
>>>> Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised?<<<<---Doc. B.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From this post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020908/msgs/30129.html>>>>...this is not a liberal Democrat rant, sorry Dinah if this sounds uncivil. Maybe everything looks blue from outside the country.<<<<---Medusa
I find this troubling that posters are already apologizing to the deputy about their words. This site is becomming more and more restrictive in what kind of 'support' can be offered. Perhaps I'm just feeling as if we are entering into a police state where soon our thoughts will be please be civiled. No paranoia just sadness at the direction over the past several months that PB and its many offshoots have taken.
~~A disappointed and saddened Alii
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 7:37:31
In reply to Re: deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by ~~Alii~~ on September 11, 2002, at 4:46:22
Funny that Alii should mention that post. I just told Medusa that there was no reason to apologize to me for what she said.
Dr. Bob may clarify, but I don't envision the deputy duties to include making close calls, or influencing the tone of the site, anything like that.
I see it more as a way to help him by doing routine housekeeping tasks, and to intervene where there is an obvious violation of civility policy that has the chance of escalating before Dr. Bob does his check of the boards. It's more of a preventative measure to keep things from getting out of hand, and to reduce the number of PBC's resulting from responses to posts that violate the civility policy. I wouldn't intervene nearly as often as I did as a fill-in for Dr. Bob, for example.
Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify this point? Do I have the job description right?
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 8:10:15
In reply to Re: deputy administrators - Dr. Bob and all, posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 7:37:31
I changed my registration to include my email, so if anyone sees a civility problem, they can email me, as well as Dr. Bob, and that way, the chances of it being dealt with expeditiously are improved.
Dinah
Posted by ~Alii~ on September 11, 2002, at 17:29:11
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
...change in how this board is being run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#subsWhat if you're not online?
If I anticipate not being able to monitor these boards as closely as usual, I may ask another member of the community to stand in for me. His or her main role would be to try to maintain an atmosphere of civility - - keeping an eye on what's going on (checking the boards at least every other day) and (if necessary):
1. posting requests to be civil
2. blocking posters who continue not to be after one warning
3. deleting grossly inappropriate posts.He or she wouldn't have access to registration information (such as email addressses); blocking is done by posting name. He or she would post under his or her usual name and not pretend to be me. He or she would also post an email address in order to be reachable directly.
He or she might not have the time or be familiar enough with the site to respond to technical questions. Housekeeping tasks like deleting duplicate posts might also need to wait until I'm back.
FYI, I have mixed feelings about this. My philosophy has been to take the responsibility (and the heat) for administrative issues myself. But I think this might be better overall for the community. Let's see how it goes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Bob,
Perhaps this section of the FAQ needs updating now that you are delegating *optional* (your emphasis) administrative powers to deputy posters.
~~Alii
Posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:39:01
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
I had the impression that several people were trying to be vigilent about 'uncivil' posters while Dr. Bob was away- and in all probability attempting to make Dinah's job easier. That's something we can continue to do here on admin, I believe Phil just did it yesterday. I agree with Mair that we also responded to Dinah's 'gentle' warnings, and I see that as a true positive, versus the 'acting out' that some do to Dr. Bob. Anyway, I'm not one to argue :-)- just making some observations. take care, judy
Posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:43:14
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:39:01
I also don't think it's fair that you have to be responsible for too much- I know you have issues that need to be heard and certainly deserve the support that the rest of us get. take care, judy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 11, 2002, at 20:37:07
In reply to I think the FAQ needs updating with this latest... » Dr. Bob, posted by ~Alii~ on September 11, 2002, at 17:29:11
> I don't envision the deputy duties to include making close calls, or influencing the tone of the site, anything like that.
>
> I see it more as a way to help him by doing routine housekeeping tasks, and to intervene where there is an obvious violation of civility policy that has the chance of escalating before Dr. Bob does his check of the boards. It's more of a preventative measure to keep things from getting out of hand, and to reduce the number of PBC's resulting from responses to posts that violate the civility policy. I wouldn't intervene nearly as often as I did as a fill-in for Dr. Bob, for example.
>
> Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify this point? Do I have the job description right?
>
> DinahThat's right. Except that if it's a "pressing" situation, there's more than just a "chance of escalating", there's already been a second problematic post...
----
> I think the FAQ needs updating with this latest
> change in how this board is being run...
>
> ~~AliiI agree, it would, but let's see how this goes for a while first to decide if we even want to keep doing it.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 20:43:21
In reply to P.S. for Dinah, posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:43:14
I don't see this as being anywhere near the same level of responsibility as it was filling in for Dr. Bob. He's still around and he'll still be the person in charge.
Don't worry. I like being a poster here too much to let anything interfere with that. I like getting and giving support.
I guess, for one thing, I can see where Dr. Bob would like to be able to have a life. :) And I don't mind helping if I can.
For another thing, I find it quite upsetting when there is a problem on the board that gets out of hand and escalates, especially when it's one of those things where early intervention would prevent a lot. I've noticed that happens when Dr. Bob is away a day or two. I guess my thought is that having a few deputies around, who would be on and off the boards more frequently, would stop a situation from escalating. I guess we'll have to see how well that works in practice, as opposed to theory.
By the way, if you'd ever like to contact me off board, my email address is bullyforyou77 at yahoo.
Dinah
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.