Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 300134

Shown: posts 44 to 68 of 124. Go back in thread:

 

Re: poster-initiated boards Dr. Bob

Posted by shar on January 18, 2004, at 15:52:30

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2004, at 1:21:56

Would the PIBs have topics, like the current boards do, or just be a subset of posters who want to be together in relative privacy and have more control over who interacts there?

Could any poster start a PIB?

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 know of training programs that have groups that went through the training together, and use those to keep in touch.

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.' But, I don't get the part about the sponsor getting blocked because their invitee does.

Shar

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2004, at 17:09:35

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards Dr. Bob, posted by shar on January 18, 2004, at 15:52:30

> Well, I think it would validate every accusation newcomers have made. Yech.
>
> Dinah

> I can't imagine anything causing more hurt feelings on Babble. Or hurt feelings period.
> It reminds me of team picking in high school... I don't know why someone's popularity or unpopularity would have to be made semi-public
>
> gabbix2

The reality is, there's a difference between newcomers and old-timers. It's definitely an issue, how to help newcomers feel welcome. I think it would depend a lot on how people went about "picking teams".

Is it better if there are "teams" but they're just not made public?

Hmm, what about a board expressly for newcomers?

----

> Would the PIBs have topics, like the current boards do, or just be a subset of posters who want to be together in relative privacy and have more control over who interacts there?

I was thinking it could be either way. But if there's a lot of interest in a particular topic, maybe it would be nice to open it up?

> Could any poster start a PIB?

I think there would need to be restrictions on who could start these boards. See my previous post...

> 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?

> 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.'

Right! But just to be clear, I was thinking a sponsor, rather than a vote...

> But, I don't get the part about the sponsor getting blocked because their invitee does.
>
> Shar

Now I'm not sure that's necessarily the way to go, but the idea is, the sponsor would think twice about whom to invite, and the invitee about what to post.

Bob

 

Re: poster-initiated boards Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2004, at 17:47:27

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2004, at 17:09:35

That would be it for me. The 2000 board nearly did it, and the reason 2001 didn't kick off is because most 2001'ers didn't like the idea of an elite board. At least that's why it did nothing for me.

If this idea gets off the ground, I would lose all respect for Dr. Bob and leave. The very idea that he is floating the idea is making me lose enough respect for him to wonder if there is another way to get my social needs met. Certainly I would NEVER be part of an elitist organization.

I would be happy to keep in touch with the friends I've made through email and instant messages, and I would be very sorry to miss out on meeting the friends I have yet to make.

But 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.

 

Re: poster-initiated boards Dinah

Posted by Dinah on January 18, 2004, at 18:08:29

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2004, at 17:47:27

Hey, Dr. Bob. Let's try it out. Why don't you start your own little elite company, and name right here and right now who'd you'd invite to belong and who you wouldn't. If you're going to have others choosing who they want to pal around with, why don't you start out and set a good example.

And maybe you could give those who like this idea permission to name their groups as well. Who would they invite. Who wouldn't they invite.

Now is that very civil, DR. BOB????

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by gabbix2 on January 18, 2004, at 18:19:11

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 18, 2004, at 17:47:27

What the Deuce!????
I swear I'm not looking for another reason to criticize Bob but I can't fathom why you can't that a sponsored board with chosen members would hurt people.

I wasn't here for 2000 it probably wouldn't have bothered me so much, just because it was judging people by the year they arrived not by any other factor.. but selection and sponsorship?!
The unchosen: aren't enough mentally ill people already living that life?

All I'd have to do (If I still posted here more often) is make a vague reference to not liking someone and probably half the posters would think I was talking about them.

Self esteem ain't a strong point for most of us Bob.

You've picked the tiniest potential criticism out of a posters sentence and blocked them ostensibly to protect someone's feelings and just now volunteered the equivalent of an emotional sledgehammer.

Your rationale for decision making is an eternal
mystery to me.


 

Re: poster-initiated boards gabbix2

Posted by gabbix2 on January 18, 2004, at 18:38:51

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by gabbix2 on January 18, 2004, at 18:19:11

I'm sorry to harp on this but,(no okay maybe I'm not)
Yes Dinah, right now I'd like you to make me a list of your favorite posters please? Who do you like interacting with the most? Please remember to keep it supportive though.

Okay I'm done.

 

Re: poster-initiated boards gabbix2

Posted by tealady on January 18, 2004, at 19:22:37

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by gabbix2 on January 18, 2004, at 18:19:11


> I swear I'm not looking for another reason to criticize Bob but I can't fathom why you can't that a sponsored board with chosen members would hurt people.
>

I can't see that either..but I figure I'm just not capable of thinking in the same way or something..guess we're all different

> I wasn't here for 2000 it probably wouldn't have bothered me so much, just because it was judging people by the year they arrived not by any other factor.. but selection and sponsorship?!
> The unchosen: aren't enough mentally ill people already living that life?
>
> All I'd have to do (If I still posted here more often) is make a vague reference to not liking someone and probably half the posters would think I was talking about them.

You've made some good points IMO here about the civility rules..the vagueness keeps comments "civil"..and it does seem to happen frequently IMO, at least it does to me..one of the many many problems with the civil rules IMO.

>
> Self esteem ain't a strong point for most of us Bob.
>
> You've picked the tiniest potential criticism out of a posters sentence and blocked them ostensibly to protect someone's feelings and just now volunteered the equivalent of an emotional sledgehammer.

Yes it is an emotional sledgehammer IMO too..but then so are the blocks IMO

> right now I'd like you to make me a list of your favorite posters please? Who do you like interacting with the most? Please remember to keep it supportive though.

but the list would still be civil..I mean that IS supportive of the chosen few, right?

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by fallsfall on January 18, 2004, at 19:26:11

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards gabbix2, posted by gabbix2 on January 18, 2004, at 18:38:51

I think that poster initiated boards would cause immense hard feelings. Hurt feelings are not supportive. Assuming these boards would be readable by anyone on the internet, it would be very clear who was "in" and who wasn't. Even those who were "popular" in grade school when they were picking kickball teams knew what the effect on the people was who were not picked early. Those of us who weren't picked early certainly know. I don't think that anyone on Babble wants to make people feel worse than they already do.

Dr. Bob, the subject of Poster Initiated Boards began with this comment from you:

Shar said it's like this used to be a small town and now it's a big city:
<http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/300467.html>;
I agree and think "law enforcement" has had to adapt...
So maybe we should try boards limited in "population"?

Dr. Bob, you indicate that you are feeling that "law enforcement" needs to change, and one way to effect that is to limit populations. There are other options, too. Since this option has, in my opinion, some really detrimental side effects perhaps we should explore other options.

If we focus on the problem to be solved, rather than the first solution that came to mind, we might discover an more elegant solution. What are the aspects of "law enforcement" that you find inadequate now? The concepts of consistency of rule enforcement, fairness, length of block etc. have been discussed - these (in my opinion) are a RESULT of law enforcement difficulties - I would be interested in looking at this from a different angle. What, from YOUR point of view, made Babble easier to administrate when it was smaller? What are the NEW issues that you face now that it is bigger? We will come up with a better solution to the problem if we have a clearer idea of why the problem exists.

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by Karen_kay on January 18, 2004, at 19:54:07

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by fallsfall on January 18, 2004, at 19:26:11

I'm going to butt in here. Though I'm fairly certain everyone would pick me for their team (HA!) I'd have to agree that this board would lose many invaluable members by starting poster-initiated boards. Not to mention the fact that posters may feel slighted by not being chosen or being turned down completely.
While I think that everyone appreciates the fact that we are brainstorming for ideas on block reductions and civility relaxation rules, I'd have to say this one would potentially lead to hurt feelings and alienation.

Why not take a second look at caps on blocks, with the exception of certain heinous offenses?

 

Re: poster-initiated boards Karen_kay

Posted by gabbix2 on January 19, 2004, at 1:25:03

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Karen_kay on January 18, 2004, at 19:54:07

Gosh Miss Karen, you just gave me a whole new perspective..all the pressure on you.
With everyone wanting you on their team, and having to let some people down.. THE GUILT..
and You have that pageant to worry about too,
You might even need some extra therapy sessions to deal with it all.
Well I'll tell you what, if you keep up that thread on P.S.B I'll find some way to pay for them okay : )

 

a different persepective

Posted by NikkiT2 on January 19, 2004, at 8:19:23

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 19, 2004, at 1:25:03

OK, I'm not supporting the idea, as I don't believe it would work so well here.

But a large chat site I'm a member of (its both message boards and chat rooms) has "poster initiated" boards / rooms. A paying member can set up up to 6 rooms of their own, and they can be public / members only / password only.

At that site it works VERY well.. Its evolved over time (its now the oldest public chat site on the internet) and there is actually only one non-member room in the whole place now (and thousands of member ones). I guess because its always been like that no one see's a problem in it. The person who sets up the room has full legal responsibility for the room (something you'll need to consider Dr Bob, as there is legal action currently being taken for child porn in a member room), and its up to them to set the "theme" if there is one as well as the restrictions.

I've been using the site 7 years now, and have never felt upset as being denied access to a room.

BUT, this isn't the same place, so I really don't know how I feel about the same happening here.
It can't possibly be done on a "length of posting" basis as that is very unfair. Maybe a membership basis would work better (and could raise funds for the site).

I dunno. Just trying to add another perspective into the pot!

Nikki x

 

Thanks gabbix2

Posted by Karen_kay on January 19, 2004, at 8:26:28

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 19, 2004, at 1:25:03

Thank you so much for the encouragement gabbi :) You know, it isn't always easy being everyone's favorite :) I'm so glad to see you back!!!!

 

Re: Thanks Karen_kay

Posted by gabbix2 on January 19, 2004, at 9:22:57

In reply to Thanks gabbix2, posted by Karen_kay on January 19, 2004, at 8:26:28

Oh I'm truly I'm a burned out babble b*tc* for many reasons, and only here on admin for a while because I remember how much it meant when people defended me. But your posts on Social are a day brightener, thanks for that.

 

Re: Thanks gabbix2

Posted by Karen_kay on January 19, 2004, at 9:58:58

In reply to Re: Thanks Karen_kay, posted by gabbix2 on January 19, 2004, at 9:22:57

Who knows? Maybe Gabbi wins the pageant? Hmmm... BUT YOU AINT GETTIN BUBBA HUN!

 

Re: let's keep it administrative here, thanks (nm)

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

 

Re: A different view of safety Dr. Bob

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.)

 

Re: A different view of safety

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#civil

Are 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

 

Re: A different view of safety Dr. 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.

 

Re: small town boards

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

 

Re: small town boards Dr. 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.

 

Re: small town boards

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.

 

Re: small town boards Dr. Bob

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.

 

Re: small town boards

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

 

Re: small town boards Dr. 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.

 

Re: small town boards Dr. Bob

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


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.