![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 69 to 93 of 118. Go back in thread:
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:24:14
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » fayeroe, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 8:54:39
strong statement that bears repeating...
>>>>> A commitment to fairness requires an understanding that even the appearance of a double-standard diminishes faith in the rules administrators. <<<<<
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:28:08
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » greywolf, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:24:14
Precisely. Which is why PBC'ing gg when others have not been PBC'd for the same thing would have provided an appearance of double standards that we did not wish to give. It's Dr. Bob's site, and it's Dr. Bob in question here. Since he did reply, is aware, surely it is up to him?
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:38:40
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » zenhussy, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:28:08
as for how other deputies decide to interpret their "duties" is another matter entirely
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:42:32
In reply to beef has always been with head honcho not you » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:38:40
Just remember that any portion of that other matter that could lead any deputies to feel accused or put down should not be posted directly or by clear implication.
Posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 10:45:26
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » greywolf, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:21:49
Dinah,
I respect and appreciate the deputies for the time and care they invest in administering a site that is undoubtedly more difficult to manage than most others. I can also understand the frustration generated when you're in a situation where everyone wants to do the right thing, but the support you need might not be as timely as some would like it to be.
But I think it was Madeleine who asked in this thread what one is to do in such a situation. My opinion is that there is plenty of freedom to raise critical issues and needs, but that civility need not be thrown out the window in the process.
Personally, I could not care less if action was not taken against gg because I understand at least part of her frustration. However, it does seem obvious to me that not enforcing the civility rules in this situation may create frustration for others, especially when an essential premise of the site's civility rules is understanding not only the plain message of your statements, but also the potential consequences of the way your message is conveyed to sensitive recipients (e.g., "triggers").
In my view, civility requires not only a concern for targeted recipients of your message, but also for all of those who may view or participate in the discourse. If this discussion is allowed to become personally derogatory simply because Dr. Bob is involved, how long will it be until other posters decide to start throwing adjectives at him, too? And when that peculiar type of incivility expands, doesn't it detract from the positive nature of the overall experience here?
All I'm saying is that the heartfelt criticisms of Dr. Bob's administration of this site could have been stated without the personal attacks, and that the deputies could have addressed the personal attacks without undermining the main message.
In any event, I still appreciate all of the deputies' efforts to make this a quality site.
Greywolf
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:48:02
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob?, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2007, at 9:58:05
> I know because I don't care. I can't imagine escalating anger, because I don't really give a hoot about any consequence.
:-) Here's to nonattachment. Or is it unattachment. I still don't understnd the difference. It did occur to me that attachment to my nonattachment might constitute attachment. But then my brain died like that computer in Star Trek.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:52:45
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 10:45:26
I thank you for your thoughtful reply and appreciate that you have valid points. And I especially appreciate *how* you said it. I urge Dr. Bob to consider your points when he gives us guidelines on how to respond to posts directed at him.
Posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:48:02
gg>>>because I don't really give a hoot about any consequence. <<<
dinah>>>Just remember that any portion of that other matter that could lead any deputies to feel accused or put down should not be posted directly or by clear implication.<<<
well if the deputies don't give a fig then where does that leave the community? if the police join in the riot does that make it okay? because they were uniformed before the riot does that protect them after? can they easily return to enforcement after engaging in _______behaviours that are outlined as not okay in the FAQ?
did their year of training involve any scenarios similar to THIS very thread?
inevitable state of affairs.....just wonder what took it this long to arrive
Posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:00:11
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
what does it say about the culture surrounding "bad to tell" secrets? That's a good point zen.
What does it say about a community who lives with these "secrets" and fashions communications and consequences around these "secrets".
It has been something I had always intuited, but felt silenced to speak about, because of the strong - oh so, very strong, culture.
I think the civility does not equal truth speaks volumes.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:03:37
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by zenhussy on May 10, 2007, at 10:55:24
No, that's not what we mean, zen. We of course give a hoot about civility guidelines.
I guess I shouldn't have brought that dialogue to Admin, it wasn't an admin dialogue. It's a zen (I guess) thing that my therapist is very proud of me about. Although I'm somewhat less plesed about it, but he says that's good, because I have no attachment to the process.
I'll clearly never be a therapist, because I don't understand that at all.
It simply has to do with personal freedom, not disregard of rules. Can you ever imagine me not caring about rules?
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
In reply to perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:00:11
Clearly civility does not equal truth.
I am fat. That is truth.
Context would matter a lot. Were my doctor to say that I'm over my weight limit, and it would do my health good to weigh less, that would be civil even if he put it rather strongly. If my husband were to say he loves me and wants me to be with him for a long time and would like me to exercise and watch what I eat, that would be loving. If a friend told me I shouldn't wear that dress because it pointed out how fat I was, that wouldn't be terribly civil, although likely true. If someone walked up to me out of the blue and told I was fat and disgusting, that would be completely uncivil. No matter how much truth is involved.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:12:55
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly - » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
I should have said, clearly to me. Which is what I meant.
Posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:13:19
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly - » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:08:49
I understand that. Completely.
But what gg touched on was secrecy and relief at speaking about something that resonates for her (& others I suspect) strongly.
Why was she prevented from articulating this previously? (rhetorical question - don't answer, please)
Why are criticisms of babble workings/decisions silenced or perceived to be silenced?
I guess this is a bigger question than what's civil/what's not scenario.
True, civility needs to be strived for, but there's also a balance.
Not to say that all is malicious intent or any. I don't know. But I have a deep distrust of people who say they have best interests in mind, when in fact - actions prove otherwise.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:19:59
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:13:19
> But I have a deep distrust of people who say they have best interests in mind, when in fact - actions prove otherwise.
"Actions prove otherwise" is a conclusion that might lead others to feel accused or put down.
I appreciate the discussion of ideas, but that one sentence needs to be restated to be in accordance with site guidelines.
Dr. Bob, of course, has oversight over all deputorial decisions, and my choose to adjust this or any one.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:21:26
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:13:19
I can't speak for gg, of course. So I won't.
Posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:28:10
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly - » one woman cine, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:21:26
I wasn't talking about the deputies, Dinah.
I am speaking about a RL situation which many of the deputies and Bob know of - which I am being harrassed etc. and which Bob is doing nothing about & has made no indication to do nothing about.
My welfare & my safety, my families welfare and safety, in this instance - are not important to him, but the content on this website is.
I can't speak publicly about this anymore. Sorry.
Posted by notfred on May 10, 2007, at 11:30:05
In reply to Surveys, and names, and I statements, Oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on May 8, 2007, at 19:35:40
" Dr. Bob,
>
> You've never asked the deputies to "hold down the fort" indefinitely. You've not provided the deputies with adequate tools and resources to do so. You've made no formal (or otherwise) changes in policy to increase deputy authority to make up for the void you've left. You have done little to make up for the giant deficit of support for the deputies while continuing to rack up a greater "support debt"."
This is troubling. I really have no way of knowing
how mush dr bob checks in with this site. I support him not being highly envolved and posting a lot as I see a big conflict of intrest with being owner, moderator, and researcher. Dr. Bob
has created a system where the deputies can always defer to Dr Bob. As it should be considering they are volenteers. There is a big problem if Dr Bob
is not present to decide on the issues the depuries do not feel comfortable in deciding/acting on. So here we have a formar depuity saying "You've never asked the deputies to hold down the fort" indefinitely." I trust GG so it seems to be Dr Bob has been motly absent as of late. Given the organizational structure DR Bob has set up this site starts falling apart if he does not spend enough time to address the issues the deputies defer to him. T have noticed the "notify the admins" function gets is not always
delt with in a timely manner. (there are some cases where I could see why the admins & Dr Bob
may resonably choose not to respond, due to volume.)It comes down to this, if you start a board like this and it collects this many users you have a resondsibility to either manage it or set up a system so others can. Nor should it get to the point that several deputies are so overwhelmed
and unsupported that they quit.
Posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 11:33:38
In reply to Re: perhaps, more importantly -, posted by one woman cine on May 10, 2007, at 11:28:10
I appreciate it, and your comments on this thread.
Dinah
Posted by verne on May 10, 2007, at 11:48:01
In reply to whatsername? » henrietta, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2007, at 20:41:37
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070423/msgs/757229.html
Gardengirl writes in reponse to Henrietta's thoughtful post,
"Was that actually easier to type than whatsername's actual name, whoever whatsername might be? Please, don't put yourself out dear. Use whatever epithets (as in Merriam-Webster's definition 1a) you find easiest."
Henrietta is blocked, yet Gardengirl's sniping is given a free pass?
Gardengirl is one of the most defensive, retaliatory, and vindictive posters I've ever encountered. She knows how to get in her little digs and still be *civil*. She epitomizes what's wrong with this site.I'm leaving this site for good. By the way, Henrietta, your post was right on the mark.
Verne
Posted by madeline on May 10, 2007, at 12:04:54
In reply to More Sniping, posted by verne on May 10, 2007, at 11:48:01
Wow, I missed that.
Bye verne, take good care.
Posted by Racer on May 10, 2007, at 12:05:27
In reply to Re: Surveys, and names, and I statements, Oh my!, posted by notfred on May 10, 2007, at 11:30:05
>> T have noticed the "notify the admins" function gets is not always
> delt with in a timely manner. (there are some cases where I could see why the admins & Dr Bob
> may resonably choose not to respond, due to volume.)
>NotFred, just to make it clear: when we -- the deputies -- get a notification, we can only respond if someone has babblemail on. We don't have access to any email addresses, only Dr Bob has those. Therefore, if someone notifies us who does not have babblemail on, we can't respond to say, "Here's our decision on this one..."
It's not that we don't read and make decisions on every one of the notifications, and in a timely manner. It's just that, if we don't take immediate action for some reason -- whether because we think something's OK, or because we're still discussing it amongst ourselves or waiting for Dr Bob to make a final determination -- there's no way for us to inform the notifier about it.
You know I like you -- and not only because of your name ;-) -- and I don't want you to think your concerns were ignored.
Peace.
Posted by karen_kay on May 10, 2007, at 12:12:38
In reply to More Sniping, posted by verne on May 10, 2007, at 11:48:01
i'm everything that's right with this site!
why not find what's right with the site instead?
how can i chase you if you're gone dear?
gosh, i was just starting to get the hang of you....
:( (notice the sad smiley face? i'm really making one)
Posted by Racer on May 10, 2007, at 12:14:32
In reply to More Sniping, posted by verne on May 10, 2007, at 11:48:01
>
> Gardengirl is one of the most defensive, retaliatory, and vindictive posters I've ever encountered. She knows how to get in her little digs and still be *civil*. She epitomizes what's wrong with this site.
>Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. You just got back from one block, and this post is clearly uncivil towards an individual poster, so I will let Dr Bob set the length of this block.
If you have any questions, please check the FAQ, at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil Any follow ups to this action should themselves be civil.
Racer, acting as deputy to Dr Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2007, at 17:03:35
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » Dinah, posted by greywolf on May 10, 2007, at 10:45:26
> All I'm saying is that the heartfelt criticisms of Dr. Bob's administration of this site could have been stated without the personal attacks, and that the deputies could have addressed the personal attacks without undermining the main message.
Thanks for expressing your thoughts about this complex situation. I'm still rather naively shocked about all the responses, but that may be in part because I'm caught up in enjoying feeling as if I'm running barefoot on cool green grass under a blue blue sky, spinning around with arms outflung and laughing with joy at my feeling of freedom. I'm also shocked that taking a leave as deputy would feel like that. But I digress...
At any rate, I agree with you that it's usually more constructive and definitely more positive to state concerns without attacking. But when multiple and varied attempts to express needs and get them met fail, using an approach that is louder and more abrasive becomes more appealing, if not irresistible, even when it's not the most well-behaved approach. Whether the message actually influences change or not, I know it had an impact and was heard. That's what I needed.
>
> In any event, I still appreciate all of the deputies' efforts to make this a quality site.Thanks.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2007, at 17:10:01
In reply to Re: Ok to be uncivil to Dr. Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on May 10, 2007, at 10:48:02
There's always rebooting. :)
gg
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.