![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 133. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 12:50:44
a chance. No hurry.
Has your interest in online communities stretched to the difference between those where the administrator assumes a nearly purely administrative role, and those where they both administrate and join in on a limited basis?
In fact, there's that contrast right here on Babble from before and after.
I know I've heard a lot from other people about how special it was to them to participate in a chat or get a message from the moderator of another online group, so I have some idea of the benefits. And similarly, I've got some idea of potential drawbacks as well.
My guess would be that the benefits of greater participation would be less room for projection, because the administrator wouldn't be a blank screen. And I can't see any advantages to a blank screen since the administrator isn't performing therapy and can't work through the projections with us. It might also decrease resentment towards the administrator because the participants have grown to know and care for the administrator and feel that he knows and cares for them as individuals. They would thus be more likely to excuse mistakes as being caused by the fact that the administrator is human.
I can see the benefits of the administrator avoiding non-administrative contact as well. I would imagine that it could possibly increase both the perception and the reality of impartiality in the meting out of administrative actions. Although in practice, we're going to see partiality anyway. And I suppose it could lead to jealousy and jockeying for favor among the board participants. Did you find that was true when you did have a more participatory role at Babble?
What do you think are the advantages and drawbacks of an administrator allowing him or herself to be real to the members of the board. And why did you change your style?
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 13:51:17
In reply to Dr. Bob. I know you're busy, but when you get, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 12:50:44
> Has your interest in online communities stretched to the difference between those where the administrator assumes a nearly purely administrative role, and those where they both administrate and join in on a limited basis?
Sure, that's an interesting question.
> there's that contrast right here on Babble from before and after.
>
> why did you change your style?Did I change my style? When was that?
> My guess would be that the benefits of greater participation would be less room for projection, because the administrator wouldn't be a blank screen... It might also decrease resentment towards the administrator because the participants have grown to know and care for the administrator and feel that he knows and cares for them as individuals.
>
> I can see the benefits of the administrator avoiding non-administrative contact as well. I would imagine that it could possibly increase both the perception and the reality of impartiality in the meting out of administrative actions. Although in practice, we're going to see partiality anyway. And I suppose it could lead to jealousy and jockeying for favor among the board participants.I don't know, like perceived partiality, there may be projection, jealousy, and jockeying for favor no matter what. In a large group, knowing and caring for everyone as individuals would be a large task...
Any thoughts on what the differences might be for the administrator?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 14:07:36
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 13:51:17
> > there's that contrast right here on Babble from before and after.
> >
> > why did you change your style?
>
> Did I change my style? When was that?Many of those who have been around a long time comment on it. It was before I came, so pre-mid 1981. I can see it myself in the archives, and even commented on Parenting about it, but you ignored my comment. :(
>
> > My guess would be that the benefits of greater participation would be less room for projection, because the administrator wouldn't be a blank screen... It might also decrease resentment towards the administrator because the participants have grown to know and care for the administrator and feel that he knows and cares for them as individuals.
> >
> > I can see the benefits of the administrator avoiding non-administrative contact as well. I would imagine that it could possibly increase both the perception and the reality of impartiality in the meting out of administrative actions. Although in practice, we're going to see partiality anyway. And I suppose it could lead to jealousy and jockeying for favor among the board participants.
>
> I don't know, like perceived partiality, there may be projection, jealousy, and jockeying for favor no matter what. In a large group, knowing and caring for everyone as individuals would be a large task...
>
> Any thoughts on what the differences might be for the administrator?
>
> BobWell, it might take a bit more time. But I wouldn't imagine all that much more time if the administrator already reads all posts.
There may be legal protections in keeping to a purely administrative role.
It might be harder for you to give administrative actions to those you care for and have a personal relationship with. But I strongly suspect you do develop different feelings for different posters already, or you would be a machine.
I've never administrated so from there I'll have to guess some. May I extrapolate from my reading about psychotherapists, even tho this is not psychotherapy?
I imagine that keeping a distant purely administrative role would be self protective. It might suit those more cautious souls. That the inevitable conflict involved in administration would hurt a lot more if the adminitrator had personal involvement.
I imagine that being involved in the group in addition to administrating it would involve relational risks and a certain amount of raw courage. It could bring about both pain and great rewards.
Now remember, you asked.
So how close am I?
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 14:31:55
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 14:07:36
An administrator who participates might be inundated with posts requesting them particularly.
But I imagine that other board members, and board culture, could help the administrator out considerably.
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 15:06:25
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 14:07:36
That's pre mid-2001 of course.
Sorry, I'm not quite myself.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 17:58:17
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 14:07:36
> It was before I came, so pre-mid [2001]. I can see it myself in the archives, and even commented on Parenting about it, but you ignored my comment. :(
So it was a while ago. Maybe I was trying to help get that board, or others at other times, going?
> > Any thoughts on what the differences might be for the administrator?
>
> Well, it might take a bit more time.
>
> There may be legal protections in keeping to a purely administrative role.
>
> It might be harder for you to give administrative actions to those you care for and have a personal relationship with.
>
> I imagine that being involved in the group in addition to administrating it would involve relational risks and a certain amount of raw courage. It could bring about both pain and great rewards.
>
> So how close am I?I think all those are part of it. Personal temperament is certainly a factor. And some of it may be a holdover from doing clinical work. You think I'm missing out?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 18:05:48
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 17:58:17
Yeah. :) I do.
And I think we are, too.
Give it some thought?
Posted by Phillipa on April 30, 2005, at 19:57:04
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 30, 2005, at 18:05:48
Dr. Bob, What do you think of a Board [one only] where the administrator does participate? Would you be held liable if information was misinterpreted? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on April 30, 2005, at 20:10:46
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 17:58:17
>You think I'm missing out?
Yup.
And I think we are too.
It would be nice if you could give it a try at least.
Come Babble with us Dr B
:-)
Posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 4:19:36
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2005, at 13:51:17
>
> Any thoughts on what the differences might be for the administrator?
>
> BobClear, codified rules of behavior and fewer smiley face icons could mark the difference between a professionally disengaged administrator and a personally involved Internet enthusiast.
Group picnics would seem a step toward direct personal involvement by an administrator. The difference for a less personally involved administrator would be less personal satisfaction derived from in-person gratitude offered by people who will always be in a subordinate position by nature of the relationship.
Codified rules that could be understood and administered by other competent professionals would be a step toward strictly administrative involvement. The difference for an adminstrator could be recognition that a poor environment on-line might result from an administrative failure to articulate rules, instead of a result of "uncivil" people whose uncivil behavior a trained professional failed to anticipate until he observed it for the first time in a forum he administers.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:00:20
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by so on May 18, 2005, at 4:19:36
> Clear, codified rules of behavior and fewer smiley face icons could mark the difference between a professionally disengaged administrator and a personally involved Internet enthusiast.
They could. :-)
> Codified rules that could be understood and administered by other competent professionals would be a step toward strictly administrative involvement.
They're already understood and administered by the deputies...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 5:04:45
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:00:20
Thank you, Dr. Bob!
Posted by Dinah on May 19, 2005, at 5:06:01
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:00:20
> They could. :-)Thank you, Dr. Bob!
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:29:18
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 4:00:20
> > Clear, codified rules of behavior and fewer smiley face icons could mark the difference between a professionally disengaged administrator and a personally involved Internet enthusiast.
>
> They could. :-)
>
> > Codified rules that could be understood and administered by other competent professionals would be a step toward strictly administrative involvement.
>
> They're already understood and administered by the deputies...
>
> Bob
The rules are partially understood by deputies who are far more personally engaged in the forum than the administrator, and whose administrative role is extremely limited. But if you read a deputies "if you had only" posts written as group members, it is plain to see deputies opinions of what is compliant does not always align with that of the sole administrator.I'm talking about complete handover of administrative duties, if only on an occassional basis, so the rules are set in a well-considered code and not by individual fiat.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 9:28:29
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in » Dr. Bob, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 8:29:18
> it is plain to see deputies opinions of what is compliant does not always align with that of the sole administrator.
I'm OK with that, reasonable people can disagree...
Bob
Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:24:50
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by Dr. Bob on May 19, 2005, at 9:28:29
But in effective government, major disagreements are assigned to legislative venues, and the result of disagreements are codified into law, which is administered by an executive branch, with any disgreements settled by a yet-again removed judicial branch.
To have a cop say, "if you had done X, it would be okay," when the the only judge in town does not agree that X is permissable, leads to confusion, and erodes confidence in the law.
Maybe you're okay with deputy administrators mispresenting your rules, but I'm not.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2005, at 10:06:24
In reply to Re: administrating and joining in, posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 18:24:50
> But in effective government, major disagreements are assigned to legislative venues, and the result of disagreements are codified into law, which is administered by an executive branch, with any disgreements settled by a yet-again removed judicial branch.
It could be debated, how effective governments like that are, but in any case, it would be a big jump to go from this system to one like that. Would you like to propose a next step, starting from where we are now?
Bob
Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 13:32:22
In reply to Re: effective government, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2005, at 10:06:24
> > But in effective government, major disagreements are assigned to legislative venues, and the result of disagreements are codified into law, which is administered by an executive branch, with any disgreements settled by a yet-again removed judicial branch.
>
> It could be debated, how effective governments like that are, but in any case, it would be a big jump to go from this system to one like that. Would you like to propose a next step, starting from where we are now?
>
> Bob
We might be on the same side of such a debate, or at least each offering sound if not similar critiques. A parliamentary system can be a bit less cumbersome. Benevolent dictatorships sometimes seem to work -- especially when they include elements of democracy as in Cuba or the People's Republic of China. But they tend to ebb and flow, regarding their respect for rights, as seems to be the case in the dictatorship that governs this board. But then the world's leading tripartite government hasn't always scored so well on human rights, either.Bob, the thing that trips up more young doctors than anything else is they go out on their own where they have no governing influence from peers. A first step toward more effective governance for you would be to invite a peer to join you in administering the board. A retired p-doc might be ideal -- someone whose clinical and administrative experience you admire and to whom you would afford deference. I would like to think you could identify such a person and offer them the deference and humility needed to recruit them to your project.
Moving the site away from the University, for whatever reason you did so, might have reduced a growing body of input that could have helped you. University support could still be an option, but you know what the issues were there better than I do. I suspect it had to do with your academic and professional liberty, if only freedom from bureaucratic red tape.
If you selectively invited peers to participate, it would allow you to stack the deck in favor of governance that aligns with your philosophies. You might even consider interns ... psychiatric med student interns ... whose youth might bring courage and insight to challenge you in ways you won't accept from members of the group. This could be an adjunct to your limited deputy system, and could result in support for your deputies you simply don't have the time to provide. That might be the dynamic I am witnessing -- you might have a limited personal budget and could be inclined to convince yourself whatever you can fit in your current budget is sufficient for all needs.
A second step, or an alternate first step, would be to seek funding to support the site. The process of documenting your accomplishments and challenges in a grant application would serve the same purpose ... it would formally document your governance in a way not intended to present as research, but in a way that could improve operation of the site. The feedback you get from a foundation board could inform you on matters such as liability, harm and efficacy.
Anyway, it's a good question you asked. Maybe it's just my ego wanting to feel important, but I get the sense you asked sincerely and might consider using the input you requested. What is important is that you alone are the one who can decide whether to take a step in the direction about which you seem interested.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:01:32
In reply to Re: effective government, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2005, at 10:06:24
Posted by Dinah on May 21, 2005, at 3:53:23
In reply to Re: input from anyone else? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:01:32
That depends, Dr. Bob, on how you would interpret lack of input from others.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 21, 2005, at 13:05:12
In reply to Re: input from anyone else? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 21, 2005, at 3:53:23
Count me in as a lack of input. I'm just not interested in small boards.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 20:48:26
In reply to Re: input from anyone else? (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on May 21, 2005, at 3:01:32
I'm not sure where things are at with Babble...
I know it can be a bit tricky to get research funding, but I don't really understand why you can't get that going which would mean that you would be getting $$$ for your time.Isn't anyone else interested in Babble???
I'm not sure why Babble is now seperate from U Chicago. Unless it is a litigation thing... But even then I don't see why more people from there aren't interested.
I know we get guest experts every now and then...
But I think it could be interesting to run something like Babble a bit more as a team effort rather than just you.
Not that I don't think you do a terrific job... But...
What if something happens to you (god forbid).
Would we lose Babble altogether???
Whereas if it is a bit more of a team effort with other people involved then there is greater security.
And different people might have different perspectives and ideas which could benefit the boards.I do think you do a terrific job.
Sometimes I don't know how you manage to not get a bit f*cked off and stuff...
But do you get any sort of supervision for help in dealing with us???
I really think you should...
For our sake as well as yours...I know this has come up a lot before....
But are you sure 'Dr. Bob' isn't a whole bunch of different people????
Just my 2c.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 20:49:22
In reply to Re: input from anyone else?, posted by gardenergirl on May 21, 2005, at 13:05:12
Posted by gardenergirl on May 22, 2005, at 1:07:35
In reply to Re: Oh. Was this about small boards??? (nm) » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 20:49:22
Okay, so I'm a dork. Not paying close enough attention.
Don't mind me...(whistles nonchalantly)
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 22, 2005, at 9:20:22
In reply to Re: input from anyone else? » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on May 21, 2005, at 20:48:26
> But I think it could be interesting to run something like Babble a bit more as a team effort rather than just you.
>
> What if something happens to you (god forbid).
> Would we lose Babble altogether???
> Whereas if it is a bit more of a team effort with other people involved then there is greater security.
> And different people might have different perspectives and ideas which could benefit the boards.My idea has been that the deputy administrators would be the (administrative) team. Since they know the culture here.
I do consult with other colleagues from time to time, too.
To continue without me, there would need to be someone who could handle the technical side of things...
Bob
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.