![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 90. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Hi everyone,
Bob invited me to come by again and since I only have until Thursday to post (this weekend is a holiday weekend in Canada -- Thanksgiving -- and I always take Friday off) I thought I'd dive in and let you know I'm here to answer any questions you have about conflict online. I'll do my best not to break the rules ;) and help you to deal with conflict online.
For those who don't know me, I'm a f2f psychotherapist in Toronto with an online therapy practice as well, and have facilitated an online support board for years. I wrote an article about handling conflict online which you can read here http://www.kalimunro.com/article_conflict_online.html
Feel free to ask or discuss anything you need to.
Looking forward to it,
Kali
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2004, at 21:56:58
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Hello. This isn't really on the topic of online conflict but... you mention that you have an online therapy practice. I would be interested to learn more about online therapy and to find out more about possible providers etc.
I am in the situation (more or less) where there is nobody in my region who will work with me, but the service agrees that they should fund my treatment. I hadn't thought about online therapy as an option, but it sounds about perfect for me.
Do you have any links???
I don't suppose it would be an issue that I live in NZ???(You are not talking about Eliza are you, because I have discovered her already)ha ha. sorry.
Posted by tabitha on October 5, 2004, at 0:31:03
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Hi Kali, welcome back. I don't have any questions right now but I wanted to say I appreciated your posts last time you were here, and I'm glad to see you popping in again.
Posted by AuntieMel on October 5, 2004, at 8:21:10
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
As you can see (above) we've just had a good sized conflict here. I'll try to describe it in a nutshell (correct me anyone if I mis-state anything - or if I don't describe it fairly)
This began because there is a person who often adds several consecutive posts. Although it wasn't known by most when this started, he has revealed that he does it because of a neurological disorder - and the posts are the 'unfolding' of his thought process.
The objections to this style were NOT personal against the poster - it just tends to distress several folks who see them, and it can take up a lot of room on a page.
Dr. Bob came up with a new rule (with some exceptions that didn't include neurological disorders) that there will be a 'three consecutive post' limit.
So - there is the conflict. It's a huge (polite!) disagreement between those that don't think we need the rule, those who think we do need the rule, those that don't think they can live withing the rule, those that see both sides, and those that don't care but just want the whole thing to go away.
Meanwhile the poster that triggered this discussion has left the community.
Can you think of a way to resolve this? I don't think there has been any resolution; the quiet is because people got tired.....
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 5, 2004, at 8:43:13
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Hi Kali,
Welcome back. Thanks Dr. Bob. I thought you were great. you helped me a lot.My new problem:
I had been posting to a person and another person became part of my connection with the first person.
I felt uncomfortable in the 3-way connection, expressed my discomfort and withdrew. It was not a graceful disentanglement.
I continued to communicate with the original person and that suited me.
Recently the other person posted something unkind and hurtful about me. The statement was a projection of my feelings about a situation. The projected feelings I was supposed to have were untrue. I was frozen and didn’t know what to do. So I did nothing.
Of course I wanted to say that the projected feelings were not at all what I was feeling. In fact I was feeling sympathetic toward the person and saddened by their situation. But was concerned that anything I had to say would be misinterpreted. So I said nothing.
Is this the best way to communicate by not communicating?
Do you agree that to "not engage" is the best action?
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:30:17
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2004, at 21:56:58
> Hello. This isn't really on the topic of online conflict but... you mention that you have an online therapy practice. I would be interested to learn more about online therapy and to find out more about possible providers etc.
>No problem. This site has a lot of good information and lists some providers: http://www.metanoia.org/imhs/index.html Mind you, there are many online therapists who are not listed on this site but the site does have some therapists and really good information about online therapy. You can also search "online therapist" in google for more websites.
> I am in the situation (more or less) where there is nobody in my region who will work with me, but the service agrees that they should fund my treatment. I hadn't thought about online therapy as an option, but it sounds about perfect for me.
>I'm not sure they'll pay for online therapy but I have one US client who is reimbursed for therapy I provide on the phone and monthly in person, so that might be an option.
> I don't suppose it would be an issue that I live in NZ???
>
Not at all.All the best,
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:31:29
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by tabitha on October 5, 2004, at 0:31:03
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:45:48
In reply to Re: Since you only have 'til thursday... » Kali Munro, posted by AuntieMel on October 5, 2004, at 8:21:10
> As you can see (above) we've just had a good sized conflict here. I'll try to describe it in a nutshell (correct me anyone if I mis-state anything - or if I don't describe it fairly)....
>
> This began because there is a person who often adds several consecutive posts. Although it wasn't known by most when this started, he has revealed that he does it because of a neurological disorder - and the posts are the 'unfolding' of his thought process.
>
> The objections to this style were NOT personal against the poster - it just tends to distress several folks who see them, and it can take up a lot of room on a page.
>
> Dr. Bob came up with a new rule (with some exceptions that didn't include neurological disorders) that there will be a 'three consecutive post' limit.
>
> So - there is the conflict. It's a huge (polite!) disagreement between those that don't think we need the rule, those who think we do need the rule, those that don't think they can live withing the rule, those that see both sides, and those that don't care but just want the whole thing to go away.
>
> Meanwhile the poster that triggered this discussion has left the community.
>
> Can you think of a way to resolve this? I don't think there has been any resolution; the quiet is because people got tired.....Interesting. I did read a bit of the discussion but I didn't see where people objected (maybe I didn't go far enough back.) I can understand it feeling overwhelming to some people to see and read many posts from the same person in succession. I wonder whether the people who found it distressing had the opportunity to talk about their distress and be heard and understood and perhaps explore what it raised for them -- for example, what it meant to them, what it reminded them of -- and what might be some options or strategies (including the 3 post limit.) Sometimes being heard, understood, and having the opportunity to explore how the multiple posts affects them helps people to see through to different options, and sometimes not. But, it's worth a shot. At some point, it might help for people who are okay with the multiple posts to share why it's okay, but not until the distressed ones are heard. That may give them a new way of framing the issue. I don't have an opinion on what should happen. I more inclined to dig deeper and deal with why this is an issue. Often times that opens up many more options than just the one solution.
If you go that route I think it's important to have a thread that's devoted to it without people trying to talk them out of how they feel. The original poster (the one who posts multiple posts) might need his own thread to process how he feels about his posting style being the subject of distress and discussion, but I think that needs to be separated out from the other discussion otherwise people feel unheard.
It's more involved but it means hearing everyone out and exploring the issues more fully, while separating them out in different threads.
What do you think?
Kali
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:59:32
In reply to Hi, Kali...I have a question. : ), posted by Jai Narayan on October 5, 2004, at 8:43:13
> Hi Kali,
> Welcome back.Hi Jai, thanks! :)
>
> My new problem:
> I had been posting to a person and another person became part of my connection with the first person.
> I felt uncomfortable in the 3-way connection, expressed my discomfort and withdrew. It was not a graceful disentanglement.
> I continued to communicate with the original person and that suited me.
> Recently the other person posted something unkind and hurtful about me. The statement was a projection of my feelings about a situation. The projected feelings I was supposed to have were untrue. I was frozen and didn’t know what to do. So I did nothing.
Frozen? Did you feel scared? What were you scared might happen?
> Of course I wanted to say that the projected feelings were not at all what I was feeling. In fact I was feeling sympathetic toward the person and saddened by their situation. But was concerned that anything I had to say would be misinterpreted. So I said nothing.
>Okay, so you were scared that you would be misunderstood. And how would that feel to be misunderstood? Would that raise your fear level?
> Is this the best way to communicate by not communicating?
> Do you agree that to "not engage" is the best action?
>I support people to not engage when they choose to not engage for a variety of reasons. It sounds like in this situation you didn't exactly choose to not engage but felt afraid to engage.
I think what you wrote that you wanted to say sounds really good. For sure, you run the risk of not being heard, understood, or believed by the other person and you have the choice to try again and continue to talk it out with them or not. It sounds like it might be worth the effort for you to state what you felt -- your truth -- even if the other person misinterprets it.
In all relationships, at some point, we are not heard, are misunderstood or misinterpreted, and we have to take the risk to engage and share our reality to overcome misunderstandings. If it doesn't go anywhere, or the other person doesn't feel open, you might decide to let it go but at least you know you gave it a chance. Sometimes people can't hear things in the moment but think about it and come back to you later. You never know what might happen -- it could be positive! :)
Hope that helps, Jai,
Kali
>
Posted by Jai Narayan on October 5, 2004, at 10:13:40
In reply to Re: Hi, Kali...I have a question. : ), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:59:32
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 10:23:49
In reply to thanks Kali : ) Jai (nm), posted by Jai Narayan on October 5, 2004, at 10:13:40
.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 11:00:17
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Welcome back, Kali. I got a lot out of your last visit, and know that you are aware of our recent conflict about multiple consequetive posts. I took your advice and kept away from the discussion as I knew it would only upset me and I would not be able to add anything that could resolve the situation, so I thank you very much.
A question I have for you is whether a deputy or multiple deputies of Dr. Bob might have helped in a situation like this. I don't know if I am reading the thread incorrectly but it looked like it might have escalated while the good doctor had his back turned...
thank you!
pc
Posted by Fi on October 5, 2004, at 15:23:01
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
PS on this: I realise lots of it is chatting in general- the only bit that is actually organised into a question is marked *.
I thought I'd missed my chance on this at first (in UK, 10/7 means the 10th of July!) Actually, its been a surprisingly easy to be involved when most other are in the US, which could have been a source of misunderstanding and therefore conflict!
Having the guideline to avoid politics probably also helps in this (as well as being useful for people in the US who disagree with each other).
I found it tempting at one point,just as this is the only informal contact I can have with people in the US, and sometimes it would be fascinating to hear their perspective on big political issues as the US has such an impact on the rest of us. But I agree its a good idea not to have politics and actually incite conflict!YOur article is really good- I will read it more carefully once I am offline. Its so true that people can completely misunderstand. As well as feeling cautious of how to post, if someone is likely to react strongly to a message that isnt intended to cause that reaction.
Its difficult to wait before replying sometimes- I go online once a day, and also can get lost in all the postings so might hard to track down the posting I want to repl to again.
But waiting makes sense,and I have got in hot water at work by reacting to email with a reply I regret (and would never have said to that boss in person). Feels good at the time, tho!
In more general terms, its maybe not surprising that over the long time I have been on and off the boards, there have regularly been people challenging the boundaries/rules/guidelines that Dr Bob uses in facilitating the boards.
I suppose that is inevitable (and I admire Dr Bob in persisting with it all so long term!) I expect its just one of those things which is bound to happen, and sometimes go on at length. *Is there a different perspective us posters can use to address this maybe a bit quicker/effectively? Do we leave it to Dr Bob?* I hope that he realises that there may well be a silent bunch who dont mind a change, and therefore dont get involved in the discussion.
I have occassionally pointed out to people that dont like the restrictions that there are lots of other chatrooms/boards etc where people can say exactly what they like, but that never seems to address peoples' concerns.
Sorry-this is rambling on (typing rate must affect length of messages too!)
Finishing comment: I think it helps a lot that there is an Admin board. Means its optional if any of us even see the posts here, so we can choose to stay in a more tranquil board and therefore more supportive and focussed on our needs, but also have a context for discussion about the process/boards.
Fi
Posted by AuntieMel on October 5, 2004, at 17:08:05
In reply to Re: Since you only have 'til thursday..., posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:45:48
Some links to where the discussions started:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394601.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395249.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395111.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/395385.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395709.html
The really long one:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/394224.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040927/msgs/395874.html
The problem seems to me to be that when this happens it all happens so quick, many people join in and it's hard to keep track of who said what. I can't for the life of me figure out a way to get it to slow down - I don't see how anything can be approached rationally if it doesn't.There is something in the dynamic that needs changing, but I don't know where/how to start.
Mel
Posted by alexandra_k on October 5, 2004, at 19:18:17
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 9:30:17
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:24:53
In reply to Re: Hi, remember me? :) » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 11:00:17
> Welcome back, Kali. I got a lot out of your last visit, and know that you are aware of our recent conflict about multiple consequetive posts. I took your advice and kept away from the discussion as I knew it would only upset me and I would not be able to add anything that could resolve the situation, so I thank you very much.
>How wonderful you could give that to yourself! :)
> A question I have for you is whether a deputy or multiple deputies of Dr. Bob might have helped in a situation like this. I don't know if I am reading the thread incorrectly but it looked like it might have escalated while the good doctor had his back turned...
>
> thank you!
> pcI don't know what a deputy is but I'm imagining that they might be members who help out with moderation/facilitation? If that's the case, I would say, yes indeed. Because I don't know their role it's hard to say but if it was within their role to suggest that there be a thread for those individuals who found the consecutive postings upsetting so they could talk it through and be heard and understood, and perhaps one for the poster to share his views about the issue without interrupting the ones who are upset, and perhaps even another for those who were okay with his posting. The idea isn't to set up "sides" as it might sound but to let everyone have a space to be really heard and explore what they're feeling. Often times that process allows things to resolve themselves.
If I've misunderstood the deputies' role, please let me know and I'll answer based on what their role is.
Kali
Posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
In reply to Hi partlycloudy (nice name) :), posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:24:53
Deputies ar meant to interpret the Rules of Psycho-babble whilst Dr. Bob is not able to attend to them. As I understand it, the deputies don't interpret the rules so much as inforce them.
Still, I think the escalating situation with Lou Pilder could have been diffused if closely monitored.
That's the beauty and the beast of babble. We are neither closely monitored for censorship, nor for abuse of policy. Our freedom trips us up every time.
pc.
It rained today but it was MostlySunny.
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:42:42
In reply to Hi, remember me? :), posted by Kali Munro on October 4, 2004, at 20:54:45
Thank you for making yourself available again. I know you were very helpful last time.
I'm not sure if this question falls into your area of expertise or not, and I apologize if it doesn't.
Long term Babblers seem to have a relationship with the board itself, separate from fellow posters and even Dr. Bob. And unfortunately, as in all relationships, it's all too easy to disengage, emotionally divorce the board, as time after time it hurts emotionally to be here. Mind you, I've always said that that which brings you the greatest joy can also bring you the greatest pain. I see so many of my friends disengage or leave entirely. My own relationship with Babble has been stormy at times.
I recently compared my relationship with Babble to my relationship with my therapist. Naturally one is a person, the other a community, but I see a lot of parallels.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040218/msgs/315688.html
My question is When is the relationship worth fighting for? And if you find it is, how do you recover from the blows that can be inflicted here on Babble and reingage? It's not exactly like another person because you can't really talk it out in the same way. You can't really have a back and forth until the other person understands the way you can with a person. You can lower expectations and be flexible as you can with a person, I suppose.
But are there some relationship skills that apply to a poster's relationship to the group as a whole that differ from relationship skills between people?
How to decide if it's worth fighting for? And if so, how better to fight for the relationship?
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 19:46:20
In reply to Ta lots and a question, posted by Fi on October 5, 2004, at 15:23:01
Hi Fi,
I enjoy chatty posts. :)
You wrote:
>>>In more general terms, its maybe not surprising that over the long time I have been on and off the boards, there have regularly been people challenging the boundaries/rules/guidelines that Dr Bob uses in facilitating the boards.<<<<<
Sure, that's human. People have different perspectives about how a board should be moderated, some people feel confined by rules and others do their own thing without thinking about the rules too much. People have had different experiences with being members of groups, families, boards, chat rooms, etc. and may have strong opinions about how things can work here. If it's an important issue to someone, it's healthy to speak up respectfully when you disagree. It may not mean that you get what you want but it still might be important or healing to do.>>>>I suppose that is inevitable (and I admire Dr Bob in persisting with it all so long term!) I expect its just one of those things which is bound to happen, and sometimes go on at length. *Is there a different perspective us posters can use to address this maybe a bit quicker/effectively? Do we leave it to Dr Bob?* <<<<
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "address this more effectively." Address what? The fact that some people don't agree with the rules and express that? If so, is it a problem for you? Does it bother you that people challenge Bob? If that's the case, you could say how you feel about the rule or about the challenge. You might want to look at why it bothers you and express that. For example, some people are uncomfortable with the tension involved and it might help to simply state that. Or, you might agree with the rule and feel the need to state that, which is fine too. You might want to think about what the issue is for you -- sorry I wasn't clear what the issue for you was.
>>>>I hope that he realises that there may well be a silent bunch who dont mind a change, and therefore dont get involved in the discussion.<<<<
I see, you're concerned for Bob? I'm sure he knows that there are many opinions among members, some of which are expressed and some that aren't. But maybe you want to tell him that, as you just did! :)
>>>>I have occassionally pointed out to people that dont like the restrictions that there are lots of other chatrooms/boards etc where people can say exactly what they like, but that never seems to address peoples' concerns.<<<<
No, it wouldn't, because they want to be here and they want to have a say in how things are done. Your comment could sound like you're saying 'if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere' which doesn't get at what they're feeling, thinking, and asking for.>>>>Finishing comment: I think it helps a lot that there is an Admin board. Means its optional if any of us even see the posts here, so we can choose to stay in a more tranquil board and therefore more supportive and focussed on our needs, but also have a context for discussion about the process/boards.
Fi <<<<<
Yes, I agree. It's good to have a place to talk things out and deal with process.Take care,
Kali
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
In reply to Thanx!! » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
I'm not sure how much impact a deputy could have had in this particular situation, as very few PBC's were given, and I don't know what else a deputy could do. Sometimes it's very clear and a deputy could be a lot of help. Sometimes it's less clear. Most people were civil in this debate. I certainly broke the new rule and could have been admonished, I suppose.
I'm thinking that the best way to have more quickly resolved the latest problem would have been more regular involvement by Dr. Bob and more clarity by Dr. Bob. I know that it took several posts by Dr. Bob for me to understand what on earth was going on. A deputy couldn't have clarified that. Only Dr. Bob.
Sometimes I think Dr. Bob needs to have someone read his posts to make sure his very short sentences, which I'm sure make a great deal of sense to him since their context is inside his brain, is equally clear and understandable to others.
Posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
In reply to (Sorry, Kali Munro to interrupt) » partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
you know, I keep having to redefine myselef here - obviously not clear enough!!
My thoughts were that the rules themseleves needed to be more clearly defined (which might have not been able to to this point) so that the deputies could intervene.
Dinah, my most and most sincerely revered Dinah, I do not mean to insult you in any miniscule way,
pc.
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:01:45
In reply to Thanx!! » Kali Munro, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 19:35:13
Had the discussion been closely moderated what would the deputies have done, in your view?
>>>It rained today but it was MostlySunny. <<<It was Totally Sunny today here. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 5, 2004, at 20:23:23
In reply to (Sorry, Kali Munro to interrupt) » partlycloudy, posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 19:50:23
I have followed some of the conflict but will admit that I didn't keep up with all of it...
I think that Dr. Bob seems to give a lot of his time to the boards. We should remember that he isn't (?) funded for his time on psychobabble - and he also has a 'real job' to attend to. I too get frustrated (at times) with getting chunks of my own posts back at me with maybe a short ambiguous comment added - but have always found him willing to clarify if requested. I also have sympathy that one could become so enmeshed in babble that it could become a 24/7 job. (I mean in a way that is what I like about babble - when my life falls apart there is something for me to become enmeshed in) And that enmeshment is made all the more likely when there are masses and masses of posts requiring attention to be dealt with. We don't want to burn him out, after all.
When there is conflict on the board I think it is up to us as babblers to try to deal with it in appropriate ways. I don't see why we should 'need' Dr. Bob or a moderator or a deputy or whatever to implement some of Kali's suggestions. Why don't we all try to take some responsibility for attempting to implement them ourselves?
I think that useful points have been raised about people starting threads for the discussion of certain points of view. I think that things can be sorted out on babble in a similar manner to non-virtual interpersonal communication but realise that it is complicated by the time it takes for people to respond. Having a conversation can take several days and can run into weeks. Perhaps it is our opportunity to learn tolerance, and strategies for dealing with the feelings that issues conjure up for us.
Posted by Kali Munro on October 5, 2004, at 20:32:18
In reply to Re: Since you only have 'til thursday... » Kali Munro, posted by AuntieMel on October 5, 2004, at 17:08:05
I read some of the threads but I gave up reading after awhile -- it was too much! :)
One dynamic I see is a tendency to be forceful of one's views on both "sides" of the equation. I think some people felt that the consecutive poster was being "pushy" while being rather forceful themselves. I wonder what would have happened had someone said, "Hey, I'm sure you have some interesting things to say, but when you write so much I can't read it all -- it's too much for me to read! If I don't read everything, I'm not going to know what you're saying and be able to respond to you. I'd be far more likely to respond to you if you could write less. Do you think you could try that?" Naturally, it would carry more authority if Bob said it, but what about a deputy?
Personally, if I were a member, I would have had little patience for reading and responding to many of the poster's posts and would have chosen not to read them after awhile.
If I were the moderator, I might have wanted to check the pulse of the community and asked the original poster to post less. Likely one difficulty that would have arisen is the poster would have asked for an amount of posts and that it be applied equally to all.
I would have wanted to try to communicate with him that this wasn't a black and white issue, in other words, there may be times that people need to write a number of posts consecutively but it wouldn't be the norm. So, to create a rule because one person is doing it a lot wouldn't be fair to those, including him, who might do it occassionally.
I would also want to discuss with him that his tendency to post a lot gets in the way of his being heard and understood and responded to. I likely would have wanted to have addressed the issue with him directly and help him to see the impact on *him* (i.e. many people feeling like they couldn't communicate with him)
I see how intense it all got and another dynamic I see was that assumptions were made without checking them out. For example, rather than saying "are you doing X?" and then proceed to assume someone is doing X, I would want to ask what the person was trying to achieve. I imagine he wanted to be heard and that wasn't likely going to happen if he wrote so many posts. If he wanted Bob to hear him, and some of his posts were directed to Bob, then I would have left that thread to Bob.
That's my thoughts at this moment.
Kali
Posted by Dinah on October 5, 2004, at 20:43:28
In reply to Interruptions mostly certainly invited » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on October 5, 2004, at 20:00:22
Oh, I wasn't at all insulted. Really. :)
I just had given it some thought at the time. There was only one point in the proceedings where I thought a deputy could have been useful, and since the situation resulting from that didn't escalate (although the entire situation certainly did) I don't think it was a big problem.
Now the last blowup was a perfect deputy situation. I always thought a perfect deputy situation is where there is a clear violation of the civility policy that Dr. Bob would happily take care of when he gets to the boards, but in the meantime posters get all upset about what the poster has said and the fact that there has (as of yet) been no admonishment.
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.