![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 167 to 191 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by wildcard11 on February 4, 2006, at 18:54:49
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2006, at 19:06:26
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2006, at 20:02:00
In reply to :-) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2006, at 19:06:26
Posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2006, at 20:03:39
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Thanks Dr. Bob!!!! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on February 4, 2006, at 20:16:37
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Posted by ClearSkies on February 4, 2006, at 21:37:55
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Posted by ClearSkies on February 4, 2006, at 21:38:40
In reply to Great decision, great precendent set. (nm), posted by ClearSkies on February 4, 2006, at 21:37:55
great spelling
Posted by crazy teresa on February 4, 2006, at 22:03:00
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
> OK, the deputies and I have discussed this, and we're going to give it a try. I know it's been longer than 1 week, but I'm going to unblock Larry now.
>
> BobI am grateful, sir.
I liked your subject line, too.
Lar
Posted by muffled on February 4, 2006, at 23:31:56
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob. » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
There hope for babble yet!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one guys!!!!
Muffled
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2006, at 0:06:31
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
> OK, the deputies and I have discussed this, and we're going to give it a try. I know it's been longer than 1 week, but I'm going to unblock Larry now.
>
> BobThank you. Yes, you! ;-)
Lar
Posted by Dinah on February 5, 2006, at 1:04:28
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob. » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
Wasn't it?
Posted by teejay on February 5, 2006, at 7:16:34
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob. » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
You think you might stay with us for more than a couple of weeks this time Lar????? :-)))
Dr Bob will be dishing out part time memberships at this rate ;-)
TJ
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 5, 2006, at 8:07:43
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob., posted by teejay on February 5, 2006, at 7:16:34
"A significant and praiseworthy increase in computer intelligence"
Excellent.
Welcome back Mr Hoover.
~
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 5, 2006, at 23:28:23
In reply to Highly Commendable Administrative Action, posted by Sobriquet Style on February 5, 2006, at 8:07:43
that's great.
And that subject line..jiminy crickets.
My head is spinning.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
In reply to Re: are WE not the community?, posted by Dr. Bob on January 10, 2006, at 2:08:09
> Would anyone like to volunteer to join the current deputy administrators? ... feel free to reply here or by email.
>
> Speaking of more democratic, I'm thinking about having an election this time. But how exactly to do it would still need to be worked out.Here are some specifics. I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
I'm trying to establish some specific requirements. Currently, my idea is that candidates need to have been registered for 1 year, to have posted 300 times, and not to have been blocked for longer than 4 weeks at one time or within the last 3 months.
Volunteers should *not* assume that satisfying the above requirements means they'd automatically be selected. There may not be an "election", but there probably will be at least some sort of opportunity at some point for posters to provide feedback. I think that could be done here or privately, and any feedback that's posted will need to be civil, but still there's clearly the potential for dynamics involving acceptance, rejection, competition, envy, etc.
Any questions? Thanks for working together to keep this community going,
Bob
Posted by muffled on February 6, 2006, at 11:26:48
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
HA! I like how Bob tagged this bit onto the now happy, happy thread. Hmmmmmmm.
Anyhow, one question. Who would WANT to be a deputy? Gaaaaaack! Not my thing at all. And it must be time consuming and stressful at times. And you'd have to be calm and mature.
I guess its an altruistic thing.
But not my thing.
I am thankful and admire those who do it though...
Just was kinda curious is all.
Muffled.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 6, 2006, at 12:04:20
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
> I'm trying to establish some specific requirements. Currently, my idea is that candidates need to have been registered for 1 year, to have posted 300 times, and not to have been blocked for longer than 4 weeks at one time or within the last 3 months.
That narrows it down a bit. Crazy T? You wanna?
Lar
Posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 17:45:30
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
> Here are some specifics. I think we could accommodate 2 additional deputies now. Let say the deadline for volunteering is in 2 weeks = through Feb. 20.
>
> I'm trying to establish some specific requirements. Currently, my idea is that candidates need to have been registered for 1 year, to have posted 300 times, and not to have been blocked for longer than 4 weeks at one time or within the last 3 months.
>
> Volunteers should *not* assume that satisfying the above requirements means they'd automatically be selected. There may not be an "election", but there probably will be at least some sort of opportunity at some point for posters to provide feedback. I think that could be done here or privately, and any feedback that's posted will need to be civil, but still there's clearly the potential for dynamics involving acceptance, rejection, competition, envy, etc.
>
> Any questions? Thanks for working together to keep this community going,
>
> BobI really like the idea of people being allowed to give feedback on the candidates. I personally think it should only be done privately to you and the deputies though. I know I find it hard to be really truthful about someone when I know they're reading what I'm writing about them. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings if I had some negative or contructive things to say about them as a deputy...especially if I really like them as a poster.
I vote for what you are proposing, but to keep it private between you and the current deputies. You should set up an email specifically for comments that automatically gets forwarded to you and each of the deputies. I'd feel most comfortable with that.
One question though...how is a person supposed to know if they have the required amount of posts? Since we can't see a post count, there is no way for someone to know. And I don't know if a certain post count should be a criteria. It's not hard to do a ton of posts without being helpful to the community. All it takes is 300 :-) posts and a person can apply. Technically, I don't even have to ever say a word to reach 300 posts. Not that I think that will be the case with any candidates, but it's just to show that post count doesn't really imply anything. I like the year requirement and previous blocks requirement though. I'm really interested to see how this all turns out.
(I haven't been here a year yet, so none of this applies to me anyways...just curious)
Posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2006, at 18:09:24
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 17:45:30
You can get a post count, of sorts.Go to the bottom of the page. Type in "poster:thuso" in the search box.
Google will give you a count on the results page, BUT...
If you type in the same thing, but include a space after the colon, you'll get a much lower count. Mine, e.g., is 1060 vs. 491.....not sure if the first is picking up ALL posts w/my username (i.e., replies, also) and the second only ones on threads I've started. Frankly, I'm too lazy at the moment to analyze the results. lol (lazy out loud!)
Deneb (I think?) asked about this discrepancy some months back. I just can't recall what Dr. Bob's answer was....anyone??
I'm sure others - and DB obviously - will know.
Also, perhaps Dr. Bob isn't thinking of number of posts being equated with being more or less helpful to the community. Perhaps he just chose a minimum number of times posting at which a poster would at least be familiar with both the mechanics of posting, and at least be minimally known to/by the community? Of course, I'm speculating. But I'm guessing it's something quite general and basic.
I also totally agree any input should be private, and I like your suggested method. The potential for hurt and misunderstanding by doing this on the board, no matter how civil, polite, careful and constructive seems to outweigh the benefits, IMO. Sounds like an interesting idea for an admin discussion, though :-)
Posted by thuso on February 6, 2006, at 19:15:46
In reply to Re: counting your posts, and my 2cents » thuso, posted by 10derHeart on February 6, 2006, at 18:09:24
> If you type in the same thing, but include a space after the colon, you'll get a much lower count. Mine, e.g., is 1060 vs. 491.....not sure if the first is picking up ALL posts w/my username (i.e., replies, also) and the second only ones on threads I've started. Frankly, I'm too lazy at the moment to analyze the results. lol (lazy out loud!)
>
> Deneb (I think?) asked about this discrepancy some months back. I just can't recall what Dr. Bob's answer was....anyone??
>
> I'm sure others - and DB obviously - will know.
>That's interesting. I get three completely different numbers doing it the three possible ways. It's interesting to see how spread apart the numbers are. Too much work for me! :-P
> Also, perhaps Dr. Bob isn't thinking of number of posts being equated with being more or less helpful to the community. Perhaps he just chose a minimum number of times posting at which a poster would at least be familiar with both the mechanics of posting, and at least be minimally known to/by the community? Of course, I'm speculating. But I'm guessing it's something quite general and basic.
>Well, I'm the kind of person who would rather have someone with fewer posts (but each of those posts is very impactful) as a deputy than someone who just has a bunch of posts and is known by the community. The first person would strike me as someone who gave deep thought to each post. I'm just a person who prefers quality over quantity in someone who has some sort of authority over me. Personal preference I guess. And I would think the feedback Dr. B is looking for about the candidates would bring to light if they would make a good deputy. I'd hate to see someone who has 275 posts, not be able to submit their name even though they would make an amazing deputy. That's why I'm all for the minimum membership time and ceiling on current/previous blocks. I would hope our comments along with Dr. B's and the deputies’ experience with that poster would be more insightful than post count. It will be interesting to see what the final criteria are.
> I also totally agree any input should be private, and I like your suggested method. The potential for hurt and misunderstanding by doing this on the board, no matter how civil, polite, careful and constructive seems to outweigh the benefits, IMO. Sounds like an interesting idea for an admin discussion, though :-)
>I think that would be great just in general. Until Dr. B gets the "report this post" link up and running, it would be nice to have 1 email address/babblemail that you can send questionable posts to that will go to all the deputies and Dr. B. That way they all know about it and whoever happens to be near their email can just hop on here and deal with a situation. A girl can dream.....
hahaha!
Posted by teejay on February 6, 2006, at 19:27:45
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Larry Hoover on February 6, 2006, at 12:04:20
I'd nominate you for the job Lar, but you spend so much time AWOL that Dr Bob might end up banning you for dereliction of duty ;-))))
Nice to see you back.
TJ
Posted by ClearSkies on February 6, 2006, at 22:24:22
In reply to Re: openings for deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on February 6, 2006, at 10:59:08
I agree that the entire process - from proposal to selection and training of - should be kept off the boards in order to minimize the pressure the boards would feel at nominating one person over another. Keep it all quiet until they are ready to roll.
CS
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 8:19:57
In reply to Re: Thank you, Dr. Bob. » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on February 4, 2006, at 22:25:53
Posted by Tamar on February 8, 2006, at 19:19:44
In reply to Re: unblocking with love, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2006, at 18:44:22
I'm very happy about this decision.
Tamar
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.