![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 58 to 82 of 124. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 20, 2004, at 1:38:31
In reply to Re: Thanks » gabbix2, posted by Karen_kay on January 19, 2004, at 9:58:58
Posted by mair on January 22, 2004, at 8:13:45
In reply to Re: A different view of safety, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2004, at 5:04:32
>
> --
>
> "I thought maybe I'd try reminding posters if I PBC them that they can post here to ask for more of an explanation or for suggestions on alternative ways to express themselves."
>
> > "I regret saying that people can see blocks and PBCs as a learning experience. Yes they can, in theory. But how many do? Honestly it took me weeks to get over my feelings about being PBC'd.. and I've not yet been blocked. It became a learning experience.. eventually, after a lot of pain and upset."
> >
I wonder how many of us feel safer because you've found Larry's posts to be in violation of your civility rules. I wonder how many of us feel a little worse about this site because we've had to witness yet another rather wrenching controversy over the fine shades of meaning which determine civility, followed by a sanction which seems way out of proportion, followed by the all-too-inevitable disaffection and disappearance of yet another valued poster.I think what this board has just been through with Larry and St James will continue to happen over and over again so long as you objectify that which is inherently subjective. If your determination about civility falls into the "reasonable people can differ" category, it can certainly be discussed but it shouldn't be applied in a way which results in some sanction. And in most cases I don't think it's a learning process at all for the board as a whole, certainly not for posters who are wise enough never to cross the portals of the admin board.
What exacerbates this is the predictably uneven and seemingly arbitrary application of your standard of civility, which makes things around here sometimes seem more like rule by ambush - and the dramatic escalation of penalties which injects a measure of emotional turmoil into what should be just a discussion about why you view someone's post in a different way from the way the poster intended it. (it's like the "3 strikes you're out" laws which fail to differentiate between comparatively petty crime involving no physical harm to others, and homicides)
This Board has to have a system where you make the determinations about what is civil and what is not. I don't think anyone here wants you to give up that function. (although a more common sensical approach might be nice). I do think however that we would all be better served if you recognized that standards like "be supportive" cannot truly be applied in an objective and even way and that posts which are not as easily pegged as uncivil should be a topic of discussion, but not, without more, a reason for a block.
Mair -( who wishes that Board controversies only happened in July when I am more easily distracted by healthier pursuits.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2004, at 14:27:09
In reply to Re: A different view of safety » Dr. Bob, posted by mair on January 22, 2004, at 8:13:45
> I think what this board has just been through with Larry and St James will continue to happen over and over again so long as you objectify that which is inherently subjective. If your determination about civility falls into the "reasonable people can differ" category, it can certainly be discussed but it shouldn't be applied in a way which results in some sanction.
Objectify how? I think I'm clear that it's subjective:
> It's subjective. I may think I know it [incivility] when I see it, but others may think they know it when they see it, too -- and we may disagree.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilAre you suggesting that I shouldn't block someone if one reasonable person differs?
> And in most cases I don't think it's a learning process at all for the board as a whole, certainly not for posters who are wise enough never to cross the portals of the admin board.
There may be ways to increase how much is learned, and I'm open to suggestions. OTOH, you can lead a horse to learning, but you can't make him drink...
> it's like the "3 strikes you're out" laws which fail to differentiate between comparatively petty crime involving no physical harm to others, and homicides
Some differentiation does take place, though of course reasonable people can disagree...
Bob
Posted by Racer on January 26, 2004, at 20:22:02
In reply to Re: A different view of safety, posted by Dr. Bob on January 24, 2004, at 14:27:09
> OTOH, you can lead a horse to learning, but you can't make him drink...
>
>
No, no, no, Dr Bob!!! It's "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think!"And I agree: there needs to be a final authority on civility. Even if that authority is sometimes arbitrary, we still need it. Kinda like a Supreme Court, if that makes sense. Not because they're always right, but because they are the final arbiters. Just because someone has to have the last word, otherwise things will continue, usually escalate, and there has to be some way to say, "This far and no further," along with the means to make it so.
(When I taught riding to little kids, if I told a kid to move, and didn't get an immediate response, I'd often pick the kid up and move her physically. Parents sometimes commented that their kids always behaved for me -- yeah, because I didn't negotiate about safety, so they learned to do what I said, when I said it, without questioning. They learned to obey me, but they also learned to trust me, that what I told them to do was for their benefit. That's not the way everyone should be treated all the time, but often we do need someone to be In Charge. A lot of the kids I dealt with adored me, BECAUSE I was In Charge, and it allowed them to relax in a way that negotiated obediance didn't. I'd explain why I told them to do something AFTER I got them out of the way of danger, because I wanted them to learn one thing thoroughly: SAFETY required them to obey immediately.
Maybe it's just that I've been the Final Authority in that way, but I don't see how having a Final Authority is a bad thing. When working at a non-profit, one of the things I learned was that sometimes, even if I wasn't sure of my own stance on an issue, the people around me just needed me to be firm about SOMETHING in order to reassure them.
Does any of that make any sense at all?)
That's just FWIW -- and cheap at half the price.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards » Dinah, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2004, at 18:08:29
> That would be it for me. The 2000 board nearly did it
Why only nearly?
> the very idea of this makes me want to vomit. Just put me back in good old St. xxxxx and pour rancorous verbal acid on me. NO THANK YOU. I had done with that thirty years ago. I'm not going back.
It doesn't sound like you think this would be a very good idea...
And maybe it wouldn't...
While I don't think I want this to be like St. xxxxx, I do think it's natural to feel more comfortable with some people than others. What if someone in "real" life wanted to spend more time (or even to have an intimate relationship) with you and you preferred that they didn't? Is the answer to do so anyway? Not to do so with anyone? I think it should be possible to make choices and to express them in a civil way.
Also, I understand that people might be anxious about being rejected, but that may not be as likely here as they think; I wouldn't be surprised if some poster-initiated boards were really welcoming. Plus the boards that are currently open would stay open, so people would always (well, almost always) be welcome there.
That said, if the main idea is to limit the number of posters at these boards, so they'd be more like small towns than big cities, I suppose an alternative might be just to open them up to whoever was interested, up to some numerical limit. It might then make sense to require a certain frequency of posting, so spots weren't taken up by people who didn't post...
Would that be better?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 18:33:07
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17
Not good enough, Dr. Bob. This is the hill I'm willing to die on. You will, of course, do as you feel best. And so will I.
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 18:44:30
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17
> > That would be it for me. The 2000 board nearly did it
>
> Why only nearly?
>
Oh, I forgot to answer this part in my distress over the other part. Honestly, the nearly probably had to do with my weakness at the time. I needed the board too much to hold to principle. But I've abandoned principle too many areas in my life from weakness, and I hope I'm strong enough not to do so again.
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 19:01:20
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17
BTW, Dr. Bob. Why do you think that the individual boards have grown too big city? Psychological has a core group of dedicated posters but welcomes newcomers with enthusiasm as potential friends. Social seems the same. And while it's true that people with a lot in common often end up on the same threads, others are welcomed to participate. See the wedding thread on Social as a beautiful example.
Why mess up something so lovely with something that is so st. xxxxx.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 19:01:20
> Why do you think that the individual boards have grown too big city? Psychological has a core group of dedicated posters but welcomes newcomers with enthusiasm as potential friends. Social seems the same. And while it's true that people with a lot in common often end up on the same threads, others are welcomed to participate.
I certainly never meant to imply that anyone was being unwelcoming! I just thought one size might not fit all...
> Why mess up something so lovely with something that is so st. xxxxx.
Why not try to make it more lovely? Or lovely to more people?
In keeping with the small town analogy, what if I cleared space for a few new settlements, and people who were interested could pick one and "move in"? Without, of course, having to stop posting on the current boards... Maybe the limit could be 10-20 posters per new board?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on February 8, 2004, at 8:09:02
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
I see you're going to do this.
I'll have to think about things.
D*mn, Dr. Bob. I loved this place.
Posted by fallsfall on February 8, 2004, at 9:00:36
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
So, if I am understanding right, Dr. Bob, these small towns would be for posters who were "invited" by posters who were already members. But anyone could read these boards. It is just the select "members" could post. Why would that not invite members to discuss things that are unkind to nonmembers, with nonmembers not having the opportunity to respond? It is sort of like now, if someone is blocked, people can talk about them and they can't respond. But at least in that case you can justify that they can't respond because they did something "bad" to be blocked. In your small town case, the only thing "bad" they did was not be popular enough.
I have personal contacts with a number of people who I met on this board. We have connected through email and also communicate through IMs. These conversations are private between us, and I really like the opportunity to discuss some things that are too private to put on a public board. Sometimes we also get a little catty about some of the other posters - and sometimes we get concerned about other posters and try to come up with a way together to help them. I have not found it difficult at all to have conversations with smaller groups of people. But I have done it without excluding anyone, and I have done it discreetly.
I think that one of the best things about Babble is that everyone can participate - the loud and obnoxious, the shy. Those with lots of knowledge and those who are just starting to learn. Those with just one question, who need support right now, and those who need long threads of in depth study. And everyone is welcome.
I have read the 2000 board on occasion, and sometimes wanted to join in, but I couldn't. The 2000 people seemed elite, and some of them wouldn't post on the regular boards. That meant that I could meet and get to know people who I couldn't talk to. If that's not exclusion, I don't know what is.
I don't see the "problem" that you are trying to solve. Could you please explain to me how the smaller boards would be "better" than the boards WE have now? I honestly don't see the advantage, but I do see disadvantages. Granted, in the time that this was being debated I was not feeling well and, while I read the posts I might not have understood them well. But perhaps you could summarize for me what the advantages are.
Are those advantages worth the hard feelings, exclusion, and longtime posters leaving?
Falls
Posted by jane d on February 8, 2004, at 15:12:23
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2004, at 17:09:35
> Is it better if there are "teams" but they're just not made public?
Yes. But I'll get back to that later.
>
> Hmm, what about a board expressly for newcomers?What's wrong with someone saying "I'm new" on a thread on social and having a couple of other people come back with "I'm new too".
> > It's too bad the PB year boards didn't take off for the 2001 group, because that's sort of a way to get people together who have something in common.
>
> I'm not sure what happened with 2001. Maybe they didn't really feel like a cohort?Well there was enough group feeling to carry out an unofficial boycott of the board. Perhaps you are right and we just hadn't been around long enough at that time to form into a distinct group but I'd like to think it was because we potential members of the class of 2001 were not that far away from being newcomers ourselves. We remembered being welcomed (well at least allowed in to play) by the original posters and felt a little queasy about slamming the door shut behind us.
>
> > And, I assume, if a PIB is created, there would be no reason newbies couldn't be added if they have a sponsor or the group votes 'yes.'For me the question that jumps out at me is why do this under the auspices of babble at all. The truth is groups like this already exist and new ones can be created at will. I belong to one such unofficial group that formed years ago in the chat room of open and then migrated to IM. And I know that some of those people are in touch with other groups whose members are involved with still others and on and on. And if you read enough posts you do see that many people have off board contacts. These are private groups in a way. They aren't totally closed but as with groups of old friends in real life they aren't totally open either. I don't think they are meant to be a secret. In fact I remember that you were once invited to a virtual cup of coffee by one (which you never accepted so far as I know). But they aren't flaunted in anybody's face on babble. It's just not polite to hold conversations in front of other people when they aren't allowed to join in. Private conversations should be held privately. Otherwise it's like going to a party and refusing to speak to half the people there. When something is said at the party (ie babble) then everyone should be allowed to wander by and mingle in. And up to now they have been. It's a very nice party complete with some gracious senior hosts who show up in time to help the socially inept into the conversations until they can fend for themselves. Why wreck that?
Jane
Posted by gabbix2 on February 8, 2004, at 15:32:02
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on February 8, 2004, at 15:12:23
> For me the question that jumps out at me is why do this under the auspices of babble at all.
That was exactly my question! Except I didn't use "auspices" (In my head I used the word "umbrella.")
The fact that it's being considered in a mental health support setting makes it even more repugnant to me. In my opinion it contradicts everything every block and every p.b.c supposedly stood for.
Posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 17:37:42
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards » jane d, posted by gabbix2 on February 8, 2004, at 15:32:02
I usually avoid admin discussions, but in this case, I feel I must second (or third, or whatever the case may be) the feelings of the majority who have posted above regarding this - it seems as though setting up boards by invite only might turn things into a popularity contest of sorts, which, to me, is contradictory to what babble is supposed to be.
But, then again, I didn't create babble, so maybe I'm not clear on its intention. But I, for one, if I were not invited or 'sponsored' to be a part of a board I was interested in, would feel hurt and rejected - and how is it civil to make others feel that way? And I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable initiating a board that didn't allow anyone who needed support to be a part of it...
P
Posted by DaisyM on February 8, 2004, at 17:47:59
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
I've never posted over here either...
I'd like to add to the argument: given the time it takes to follow your "favorite" board, why create even more to bounce around on? There is already a "feel" for each subgroup and you can get comfortable there. I feel like I've lost a mentor with Dinah leaving...
Is there really a core group who wants or needs this? HOW did this get started?
In relating it to what I do, it is like saying if you don't have a specific kind of disability, you can't access this great support group, even if you think it would help you. Because we're going to decide for you what that support you need looks like. Because if we're not all the same, we can't help each other. Rubbish!
I'm so sad...
Posted by gardenergirl on February 8, 2004, at 19:05:44
In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by DaisyM on February 8, 2004, at 17:47:59
Posted by Slinky on February 8, 2004, at 19:51:29
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17
Small towns , invitation only?
No
Members would feel hurt . Wow , it would sure make me paranoid with my fear of rejection problem..this is a MENTAL health board right?
Groups naturally develop by an invitation to email.
Bob you knowz I luv you but this tastes like
ice cream with fish .
Ok , give me my board 2001 back and I'll invite everyone - I'd still be the only one using it...
cause me's an oddity from a dodgy dimension.
Posted by pegasus on February 8, 2004, at 21:26:09
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 17:37:42
Plus, as a newcomer, I have to say that I like having interaction with people who have been around here for a while. I hate the idea of a newcomer only board. I would be afraid that the turnover would be very high, and it would be hard to make friends, like a lot of PB folks have.
And, I don't really like the idea of having fewer people posting on the main boards here anyway. I love following the diversity of threads, and reading posts from folks who have known each other for a long time. I hope that doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. It's just that that's what made PB appealing to me in the first place. All the relationships that people have with each other. If those folks were all posting somewhere that I didn't have access to, I probably wouldn't bother to be here.
-p
Posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 22:01:53
In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by pegasus on February 8, 2004, at 21:26:09
> Plus, as a newcomer, I have to say that I like having interaction with people who have been around here for a while. I hate the idea of a newcomer only board. I would be afraid that the turnover would be very high, and it would be hard to make friends, like a lot of PB folks have.
Very true - because at what point would someone no longer be a 'newcomer'? Would folks have to leave after a certain period of time b/c they weren't new enough anymore? I dunno, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
> And, I don't really like the idea of having fewer people posting on the main boards here anyway. I love following the diversity of threads, and reading posts from folks who have known each other for a long time. I hope that doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. It's just that that's what made PB appealing to me in the first place. All the relationships that people have with each other. If those folks were all posting somewhere that I didn't have access to, I probably wouldn't bother to be here.Exactly, p. Mutual support and education - that's supposed to be the point, is it not? Of course, as I said in my message above, perhaps I am wrong, as I did not create Babble, so I can't know the intent for sure. But reading threads from others, even if you don't participate, is what lets us get to know each other, and is what helps us know we're not alone in mental illness and tough life issues.
argh...
P
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 9:45:39
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
Perhaps I read this incorrectly. I read it as a done deal. Something you now had firm plans to do. Am I incorrect?
I do want to clarify that I mean no ultimatum by my words. This is your board and I have always respected that fact. I know I have no powers to make ultimatums. :) It's just a statement of position.
It would help if I had more clarity as to "why" it is important to you to have these boards. It's my understanding that at any given time, the active posters on Social aren't much more than you are stating. And I can't imagine why anyone would want a small town board for medication questions or any other questions involving fact, as surely the greater the pool of knowledge, the more likely a helpful answer will be given.
The only thing I can imagine would be a board given to complex medication questions such as Cam and St. James had expressed an interest in. I can see where perhaps some test might need to be passed in order to enter a board like that, and I wouldn't consider that discrimatory.
My understanding is that you are no longer considering making these boards invitation only, but luck of the draw first ten to twenty who apply. But still, isn't it akin to having a private party in front of those not invited? Who can only press their nose to the very public window? I consider that less uncivil than an invitation only board, but still uncivil.
If you wish to have poster initiated boards, may I make a counter suggestion?
How about allowing the formation of new boards with the poster who formed it having your powers for that board and having the power to block people from that board for incivility violations, subject to your veto (a la not enforcing do not posts with no provocation)? But having no initial restriction as to invitation or size. Anyone can post at any point, just as now. And you turn over moderating control to the extent you find comfortable (although I hope you wouldn't let flagrant incivility towards other posters happen).
I suppose you could even have someone start a liberal board that bashes conservatives, since any conservative who went there would know they wouldn't be welcome, and would be asking for what they got.
Posted by henrietta on February 9, 2004, at 11:55:51
In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 9:45:39
I, too, wish you'd explain your thinking on this, Bob. I don't understand what problem these new boards are meant to solve, or what new service they are meant to provide. The potential for damage seems so obvious that I need help in understanding what potential for good you envision. Thanks.
Posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
Since this is such an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people, perhaps it would help to have a poll to get an accurate idea on whether the majority of of posters support/not support PIBs?
Thanks, judy
Posted by Karen_kay on February 9, 2004, at 13:11:37
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by henrietta on February 9, 2004, at 11:55:51
Exactly, what is the reasoning behind this? To start cliques? To make posters feel excluded? To have other posters feel as though they are popular and elite? Is this board's purpose for support or a popularity contest? I really don't understand what the purose of the smaller boards would be. Honestly. If I were not invited to one, my feelings would be hurt, as I suspect would be the case for many other posters as well. Even though I really doubt I would join a smaller board. It's not that I'm oppossed to change. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's the fact that these smaller boards would take away from the sense of community that we have right now. The mere thought of having smaller boards makes my stomach curl.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 17:17:13
In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18
I suppose I don't need to leave since you dropped the invitation part of the idea. I think that would have been so unbelievably uncivil that I just can't express my depth of disgust for that idea.
But I continue to protest the idea of small groups where you can read but not post as being unnecessarily divisive, not to mention plain bad manners by every rule of politeness I've ever been taught. I seriously hope you reconsider. If you're going to make exclusive clubs, shouldn't the internet not be able to read them either? Though I still say that Yahoo is perfect for that purpose.
Do you have the statistics for the active number of posters on Social at any given time? I can't imagine it's much more than 20 anyway.
I also hope that you give serious consideration to Judy's excellent idea of taking a poll, although we all realize this is not a democracy. (wry smile)
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 19:51:37
In reply to Perhaps a poll? » Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08
> So, if I am understanding right, Dr. Bob, these small towns would be for posters who were "invited" by posters who were already members.
That was my original idea, but it wasn't very popular, so now I'm thinking about limiting how many people could join, but letting people have their pick:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/310834.html
> Why would that not invite members to discuss things that are unkind to nonmembers, with nonmembers not having the opportunity to respond?
>
> FallsAre people only civil because others might respond? Members would need to be civil regarding nonmembers, like people now need to be civil regarding those who are blocked.
----
> > Hmm, what about a board expressly for newcomers?
>
> What's wrong with someone saying "I'm new" on a thread on social and having a couple of other people come back with "I'm new too".Nothing, but some people may not feel comfortable doing that, and even if they do, that may not be enough for them to feel really connected.
> > I'm not sure what happened with 2001. Maybe they didn't really feel like a cohort?
>
> Well there was enough group feeling to carry out an unofficial boycott of the board... I'd like to think it was because we potential members of the class of 2001 were not that far away from being newcomers ourselves.
>
> JaneWell, people would be free to boycott these small town boards, too. But PB 2001 wasn't started until April 2002 and was open for more than a year, and I'm not sure I'd consider people newcomers after 1 to 2 years...
----
> Perhaps I read this incorrectly. I read it as a done deal. Something you now had firm plans to do. Am I incorrect?
Pretty firm. But I wouldn't call it a done deal. And sometimes it takes me time to get to things...
> It would help if I had more clarity as to "why" it is important to you to have these boards. It's my understanding that at any given time, the active posters on Social aren't much more than you are stating.
>
> DinahThe idea is, the open boards are like big cities. The small town boards would be like, well, small towns. Some people prefer small towns to big cities. Those people might feel more comfortable on small town boards.
If Social is small, OK, think of it as more Socials?
----
> perhaps it would help to have a poll
>
> judyThe thing is, I think people who are here now are going to be relatively satisfied with the current system. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here now...
----
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Change is always hard here.
Some people seem to feel it would be elitist to join a small town board. But someone could do that and still visit the big city boards. And if they didn't feel comfortable in the big city, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an alternative? If they felt supported on a small board, they might even be more likely to try a large one...
People have already formed their own small groups. Is that elitist? I'm more inclined to see it as wanting to connect than wanting to exclude. But what about those who want to connect, but haven't been able to? Why not try something new to help them?
Also, I wouldn't see it as so exclusionary to let others listen in on what's being discussed...
Are people assuming that they'd be rejected? That a mass exodus from the current boards would leave them behind? There are lots of wonderful people here who *like* the current boards. Why would they leave?
Maybe no one would. That would be fine, too. I've certainly been wrong before...
Bob
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.