![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 146 to 170 of 222. Go back in thread:
Posted by zenhussy on February 28, 2009, at 15:08:06
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2009, at 15:39:12
>> I feel hurt when they're hurt. I know what they do, it's hard, and they're outstanding. <<
how about when a regular poster is hurting...do you feel hurt then as well? regular posters here are outstanding as well in what they contribute online as well as IRL. how fortunate to have so many outstanding ppl on this site!
>>They do take the whole picture into consideration. I disagree with them sometimes, and you may disagree with them sometimes. Reasonable people can disagree. I don't think the answer is to get rid of them, or the rules, or for others who'd feel uncomfortable in the role to volunteer.
> We do discuss whether more deputies (who'd feel comfortable in the role) would help.
> It may help if complaints about them are emailed to me directly and not posted or submitted using the notification system. And if blocks are longer for incivility toward them. So let's make those changes:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
> Thanks,
> Bob<<over the years this board's archives have recorded threads about your continued invitations to e-mail you directly--yet many find they wait weeks or months for a response and others have written they've never received a response to their numerous inquiries.
do you think that posters might feel hurt from the lack of response from you?
what do you think you could do to help support those posters who take the time to involve themselves in your site by writing to you w/ their concerns?
Posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 15:52:28
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt-regular posters get hurt too » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on February 28, 2009, at 15:08:06
Posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 15:54:20
In reply to Re: Shocked and alarmed and sad, posted by rskontos on February 28, 2009, at 13:44:02
very caring and sensitive post. you are a "gem".....
Posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:11:54
In reply to Re: GHOSTS, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2009, at 8:56:18
> > HELLO DR> BOB??????????????????????? ARE YOU LISTENING?????????
>
> I don't have much time right now, but I'm listening. I'm also wondering if I trigger some of you by being absent. Twinleaf mentioned emotionally unfair and abusive families of origin at the beginning of this thread.
>
> BobI am speaking for myself. I think that ignoring the posters could be triggering for some.
I am curious if you think it is better for Babble if you're here passing out 52 week blocks?
I would also like to know your take on the fact that several people question the length and math of your blocks?
I would like to know if you think that the board is in a good place right now?
I wonder if I
could get an answer to these questions or is the discussion over until May?
Posted by Sigismund on February 28, 2009, at 16:30:22
In reply to Re: GHOSTS » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:11:54
This 52 week block follows a number of rapidly escalating blocks for Zazenducke, which thus allows our yearly visit for a day only.
Posted by Sigismund on February 28, 2009, at 16:36:25
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt-regular posters get hurt too » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on February 28, 2009, at 15:08:06
Yes
This is not the way I think people should be treated.
I really would like to talk to zazenducke, and now it will be another year, and then just for one day.
And, as is surely obvious, zazenducke put those personal opinions in a moderate and reasonable way.
Posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:38:14
In reply to Re: GHOSTS, posted by Sigismund on February 28, 2009, at 16:30:22
I only had four minutes!
Posted by Sigismund on February 28, 2009, at 16:41:07
In reply to Re: GHOSTS » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:38:14
You've got to be quick, and I was away.
Posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:49:52
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 26, 2009, at 15:39:12
> > What the deputies can't do is take the whole picture into consideration.
> >
> > twinleaf
>
> > IF you are going to let people govern themselves, then get rid of the deputies and rules.
>
> > there is just too much for just few deputies to handle the board
> >
> > HappyChaiTea
>
> > the BIGGER problem for me is seeing ... the deputies get hurt. ... And yes, there is some guilt in there as well, because those kind posters who bravely and generously stepped up to do the job, and I didn't.
> >
> > muffled
>
> I feel hurt when they're hurt. I know what they do, it's hard, and they're outstanding. They do take the whole picture into consideration. I disagree with them sometimes, and you may disagree with them sometimes. Reasonable people can disagree. I don't think the answer is to get rid of them, or the rules, or for others who'd feel uncomfortable in the role to volunteer.I am curious about how you came to the conclusion that "others" would feel uncomfortable in the role of volunteering for the job of deputy?
I think that this might cause "others" to feel hurt or put down.
You did jump to a conclusion, did you not?
>
> We do discuss whether more deputies (who'd feel comfortable in the role) would help.
>
> It may help if complaints about them are emailed to me directly and not posted or submitted using the notification system. And if blocks are longer for incivility toward them. So let's make those changes:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
Posted by muffled on February 28, 2009, at 19:55:11
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on February 28, 2009, at 16:49:52
He was referring to me I think Pat.
No worries.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
In reply to Re: deputies get hurt-regular posters get hurt too » zenhussy, posted by Sigismund on February 28, 2009, at 16:36:25
> Twinleaf started this thread called "New beginnings" with I think the intent to start a discussion. How then if we can't have a discussion on Administration regarding rules and how they are enforced and how they benefit or distress posters can this board be much of anything ... I thought Twinleaf started a worthwhile discussion and yet it seems to me that Dr. Bob doesn't really want a discussion. I don't think anyone would have found Twinleaf's post upsetting except maybe someone that might know or think they were the targeted one in her statement.
>
> And why can we not openly address a issue that seems to spark so much real feelings. I always thought a healthy, I felt XXX when you said this can go a long ways toward those posters that want to have open dialogue.
>
> So this is why I am shocked, alarmed and sad. Babble it seems is a hard place to discuss all that might be on our minds. It seems that no where on this site we might have good discussions that might actually yield new methods of how things should be done because too often it disintegrates into someone getting blocked to the detriment of the actual discussion--as it did in this case.
>
> Babble is not really someplace I can voice how I really feel. And while it might seem like here and now I am saying how I feel I am holding back trying to be as civil as possible yet say what I want to say. And sometimes, just sometimes, I think we need that "holding back of what I really want to say" suspended while we sort out regulations and whatnot.
>
> I am sorry because Babble has helped me alot but in the recent past I find I feel it is better to not post even though I know I will receive good advice and help. It is not the posters or deputies I feel sad about it is the policies of Dr. Bob and his seemly unapproachability.
>
> rskI welcome healthy discussion here. I agree, I-statements can go a long ways. It's hard to have a good discussion if people feel targeted. Thank you for working to express yourself in a civil way. A balance between being open and holding back helps keep discussions productive. It may be tempting to suspend rules, but that can have its own complications.
This discussion has already yielded a couple new ways of doing things. Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other.
--
> over the years this board's archives have recorded threads about your continued invitations to e-mail you directly--yet many find they wait weeks or months for a response and others have written they've never received a response to their numerous inquiries.
>
> do you think that posters might feel hurt from the lack of response from you?
>
> what do you think you could do to help support those posters who take the time to involve themselves in your site by writing to you w/ their concerns?
>
> zenhussy> I am speaking for myself. I think that ignoring the posters could be triggering for some.
>
> I am curious if you think it is better for Babble if you're here passing out 52 week blocks?
>
> I would also like to know your take on the fact that several people question the length and math of your blocks?
>
> I would like to know if you think that the board is in a good place right now?
>
> fayeroeSure, I think posters may feel hurt when I don't respond. The deputies are responsive, but they may not be able to address some concerns fully. And of course they're not me.
What do you think posters could do to help support each other when I'm unavailable?
I think it's better for Babble to be civil. Reasonable people can disagree about how long blocks should be, or even whether there should be blocks at all. I think the board is probably a good place for some, a bad place for some, and an in-between place for some.
--
> I really would like to talk to zazenducke
>
> SigismundIt takes two to tango...
Hmm, and maybe in addition to hurt and anger, my unavailability also triggers longing?
Bob
Posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 11:16:51
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
Posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 11:20:23
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
Bob said "This discussion has already yielded a couple new ways of doing things. Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other."
I would like a clarification on the above statement.
I need to know what the "new things" are.
Posted by zenhussy on March 1, 2009, at 11:37:56
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
> what do you think you could do to help support those posters who take the time to involve themselves in your site by writing to you w/ their concerns?--z<
>>>What do you think posters could do to help support each other when I'm unavailable?
Bob<<<the original question was "what could YOU do" as many of us here are already aware of what posters can do to support one another.
trying again...what do you think you could do during your increasing times of unavailability to assist or support posters who have provided the content for this site and various research (yours and others) over the years?
do you think that when posters who have been major contributors are blocked for extended periods of time that it can create a longing in you for the Je ne sais pas they add to your site?
Posted by rskontos on March 1, 2009, at 12:52:28
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
>I welcome healthy discussion here. I agree, I-statements can go a long ways. It's hard to have a good discussion if people feel targeted. Thank you for working to express yourself in a civil way. A balance between being open and holding back helps keep discussions productive. It may be tempting to suspend rules, but that can have its own complications.
You're welcome. But, of course there is a but, I feel that this discussion did not yield a great deal to us, perhaps to you it did. In looking at the archives, it is clear this discussion regarding blocks/math/civility rules has been ongoing for years. So in the best interest of a subject coming up over and over again, how about addressing it. In doing so, realize that somethings you perceive to be offensive to us, may not actual be to us. Your perception of offensive and ours may differ a great deal. We are not you and you are not us.
Dr. Bob, no you don't trigger me when you are gone, what triggers me is posters I value are suddenly gone in a discuss that you deem inappropriate.
You know the old saying, in trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. Well, in trying to keep civility rules across the board it is bound to happen that no one is really served. That is now how I feel the civility rules have evolved. They should be protection not an absolute. You said for us to police ourselves and yet you still sweep in and block people often to the detriment of the actual discussion.
>Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other.>
Then help us address this issue once and for all. Some of us will continue to use Babble because it means so much, that is outside of you Dr. Bob.
I think we all do a good job of supporting each other. Perhaps in this case, to just watch and see if someone reported that this poster had indeed made them feel bad or insulted might be one suggestion. You made the rule for us to support and police ourselves yet I don't see how we are allowed to do just that.
So in MHO,
Another new beginning was derailed.
rsk
Posted by BayLeaf on March 1, 2009, at 14:02:54
In reply to Re: unavailability, posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2009, at 11:13:00
>I don't have much time right now, but I'm listening. I'm also wondering if I trigger some of you by being absent. Twinleaf mentioned emotionally unfair and abusive families of origin at the beginning of this thread.
>Bob
>Hmm, and maybe in addition to hurt and anger, my unavailability also triggers longing?
>Bob
My "Bob Pet Peeve List" is topped by pointing out that all the anger at him is really transference. None of it as actually justified by his behavior. It's just a marvelous way to deflect responsibility. It's an "anti-I-statement".Of course, there is some transference going on here - I won't point it out, cuz that would be uncivil, and too obvious for folks who have been around a long time....but seriously Bob. Most of the anger directed at you, imo, is not augmented by any form of daddy-ness at Babble. It is actually balanced by your actions.
Bay
Posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:05:15
In reply to Re: unavailability, Dr. Bob, posted by rskontos on March 1, 2009, at 12:52:28
This is the first time in a while that the blocking formula was used.
Posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 14:21:31
In reply to Re: unavailability » Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on March 1, 2009, at 11:20:23
> Bob said "This discussion has already yielded a couple new ways of doing things. Still, I feel sad that my policies and unavailability may lead some of you to miss out on good advice and help from each other."
>
> I would like a clarification on the above statement.
>
> I need to know what the "new things" are.
I've been thinking, Bob, and I wonder if you might feel inadequate when it comes to providing more than a safe long distance relationship with us? (I've watched for years and really can't recall an effort upon your part to reach out to us.)I think that it would be a terrific relief to some of the posters if our "discussion" was a two- way street. I don't believe that it is now.
I think that there is fair amount of self-disclosure from the posters when it comes to trying to talk to you about the administration of Babble.
It takes two to tango.
Posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:24:49
In reply to Re: unavailability » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on March 1, 2009, at 14:02:54
The manner in which the blocks are built up via the formula is transparent, as is the intention.
Posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
In reply to Blocking formula, posted by Sigismund on March 1, 2009, at 14:05:15
> This is the first time in a while that the blocking formula was used.
Hmmm, I think Dr. Bob almost always uses it. Maybe even "always."
I use it all the time when I have to block someone. In a way.
I use it, then if to me, taking into consideration all the factors, and all the gray areas I might be struggling with (e.g., was the person 'provoked?" What IS 'provoked?" How many PBCs, say in a day or two, a week, etc., warrant a block? Two? Three? One? - say if the person is particularly uncivil? [Whatever that means...]) the number of weeks appears reasonable, I follow it.
Other times, I will *reduce* the length, despite what it says, as my gut just can't see/justify the number it shows me. (I would NEVER increase the length - ever.) I choose some shorter length and notify Dr. Bob that I was agonizing over the "right" number of weeks, to have him take a look. To me, the formula is hardly the perfect solution. It IS better than the old method of doubling, than doubling again. I didn't care for that as it led to lengthy blocks so very quickly in some cases. I have come to believe there is no perfect solution. As long as I know I am factoring in compassion for posters, I can be at relative peace with myself as a deputy, and I just make the best choice I can in each case. Maybe this approach fuels a perception of inconsistency? I don't know. I rarely know what is meant by that unless it's spelled out or examples are given. I think....unless we find a software program (obviously a non-human technological tool) that scans the boards and applies requests to be civil and blocks itself, with zero human input, there will be *some* form of inconsistency people can point to in what deputies do, over time. We discuss and discuss and worry and try so hard to balance being consistent with being fair with being responsive to posters different situations.....and well, it's tough.
I don't think that is Dr. Bob's way of looking at the formula. I think I've seen that he likes to use it - period. I could be mistaken, but I think that's because in developing this tool, he has already factored in the things needed to be factored in - things that in his view ought to increase or decrease the length - by having all the various boxes to check, or not. Perhaps he's able to be at peace with that, and is more rational about it, and I am still more emotional?
Dr. Bob doesn't require us to use it exclusively at this time. We can choose to use it or not. I think he allows this out of respect, and the desire to not want to "force" deputies to take an action they don't feel is right in a given situation. My belief is he just wants us to be reasonable and we may always defer to him if we are unsure or simply don't want to make the decision.
I hate, hate, hate blocking people. It takes me - sometimes - not minutes but hours (maybe even days) to decide what to do in a case where prior practice, number of recent PBCs, etc., really point me to no choice but a block. (And I'm not even talking about the times where the choice is one more PBC OR a block - those are particularly distressing to me as I tend to see both sides and become a little 'stuck') I almost always consult any other deputy available. This is extrememly helpful - in the sense of emtional support and that 2 or 3 heads are better than one. We all can get tunnel vision, and trapped in a rut and miss the forest for the trees, etc. Sometimes they are also not sure, but usually offer their unique view and suggestion. Then I decide. If my posting name is going on something, I have to be able to tolerate my own decision within the framework of integrity and fairness as I see it. It's no fun, and almost never simple, except maybe in the case of posting while blocked. Not that I have no emotional reaction to those posters - I do. But there, as long as I am acting as a deputy, and have agreed to do deputy duties like blocking sometimes, the rule is pretty cut and dried, without that, "but what about....[insert variables]"
My points here are to say, yes, the formula does get used - at least by me and Deputy Racer. I think Dinah does not use it. And secondly, just to try and provide some insight into me as a deputy and a person, dealing with consequences of uncivil posts and one aspect of my "job." It's the least favorite part - in fact, it's not a favorite at all. I believe in blocking as I can't figure out any other method that I can see being better for overall harmony and support for the entire Babble community. I am a big believer in actions having consequences, and in following through - IRL and here. But I know being blocked absolutely s**** for (most) posters, and I do NOT look forward to the times I have to use do it.
I don't know if this helps at all. Hope so.
Posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:11:21
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
Posted by 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 16:11:50
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
>It's no fun, and almost never simple, except maybe in the case of posting while blocked
Well this could sound wrong. I, of course, only meant that it is simpler in the cases of PWB, NOT that those are fun. Blocking is not fun.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on March 1, 2009, at 16:38:11
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Sigismund, posted by Deputy 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 15:55:10
> My points here are to say, yes, the formula does get used - at least by me and Deputy Racer. I think Dinah does not use it.
I use it for longer blocks, although I don't post the formula like Dr. Bob does. But sometimes it leads to longer blocks than just doubling does, so I'd rather err on the side of shorter blocks and ask Dr. Bob to review it. Also, perhaps because I've been a deputy back when we were only a very temporary fillin for Dr. Bob, I tend to defer length setting to him if I know he's around.
I keep Dr. Bob up to date on all my deputy actions, and especially so on blocks. We all do.
Actually, when it comes to blocks, I know we're all reluctant and usually try to get a consensus if at all possible. So the formula is generally considered one way or another and results are more consistent than it would be if we acted alone.
That's one thing I like about the team deputy system.
I think the deputies also tend to argue in favor of things that soften blocks. We may not have originated the ideas of civility buddies, blocked posters being allowed to chat, blocked posters being able to receive babblemail, etc. And I in no way want to claim credit for those ideas. But I know we argued in favor of them.
I won't take credit for this either and I can't recall who suggested it, but I'd like to have a formalized system in place, where posters who are blocked for longer than a week can apply to Dr. Bob to reduce their block length in return for a probationary period, or something along those lines.
Posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:48:10
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks » Deputy 10derHeart, posted by Deputy Dinah on March 1, 2009, at 16:38:11
"I won't take credit for this either and I can't recall who suggested it, but I'd like to have a formalized system in place, where posters who are blocked for longer than a week can apply to Dr. Bob to reduce their block length in return for a probationary period, or something along those lines."
Anything to soften stuff....
I dunno, change is slow and weird.
Interpersonal communication is tough at best.
I want everyboddy to be happy.
Stupid eh?
Wished I could stay in my 'happy world' state...
sigh.
Best of luck towards many, or even some happy moments for alla you guys.Someboddy wrote of when they SI's in session (scratched hard, drew blood) and their T didn't get mad, even thopugh they broke the rule of not hurting themsleves in the T room. The T was gnetle and helped soothe her owie.
That makes me feel weird.
Everything makes me feel weird.
Its a weird world.
Sincerely happy to be nuts.
M
Posted by 10derHeart on March 1, 2009, at 23:27:23
In reply to Re: the blocking formula and blocks, posted by muffled on March 1, 2009, at 16:48:10
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.