![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 20:27:51
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Toph on December 8, 2008, at 19:48:44
Toph - if you are referring to me, I've been on Babble on and off for many years, under various names. I was here when Babble was just one board for meds. I'm pretty sure Dinah knows who I am and can confirm that I've been around the babble block.
I'm NOT a pseudo participant, just a grumpy one. It's a bummer how that project causes such paranoia.
Posted by Dinah on December 8, 2008, at 20:29:36
In reply to Re: This is so hard » Dinah, posted by TherapyGirl on December 8, 2008, at 18:44:23
I appreciate it.
Posted by lucie lu on December 8, 2008, at 20:46:52
In reply to Re: Blocked for 2 weeks » lucie lu, posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 18:08:48
> It's not the admin action I have a problem with - it's the timing. If SSSS was having trouble all weekend perhaps a Rephrase, or Please be Supportive, or an offical Are You Okay??? could have helped?
>
> I also understand that the admins have lives and may not have been available to do this.Bay, again, I think if you read through all the threads you would see that Dinah and also many posters did try gentle suggestions. On multiple threads. It may have helped on some level but the behavior still escalated.
> And as far as cliques go - they have existed at Babble, and most online communities forever. They change in size and composition, but they are always there. They aren't necessarily a bad thing - depends on behavior.
>
> Bay
Posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 20:57:02
In reply to Re: Blocked for 2 weeks » BayLeaf, posted by lucie lu on December 8, 2008, at 20:46:52
Then I was completely off base, and made false assumptions. I only saw the pain under her anger and reacted in mother bear mode. I apologize to those involved.
bay
Posted by gardenergirl on December 8, 2008, at 20:58:20
In reply to Re: Blocked for 2 weeks » BayLeaf, posted by lucie lu on December 8, 2008, at 20:46:52
I know it can be difficult to see the behavior of someone we care about seem to "escalate", especially if we believe we can predict the outcome and feel helpless to prevent it. These may be times when it might be more effective to "strike when the iron is cold" versus when it is "hot". It may be that there are times when someone's "iron is so hot" that the heat/pain somehow affects how an attempt at support is received. There are times when it can be more helpful and effective to talk through stuff when someone is not so immediately caught up in the pain and upset. In my own experience, there have been times that I've been able to take in and process support better when I've had a chance to apply coping skills, soothe myself, or otherwise get some distance from the flare up, so that I felt clearer in my head and could better use what folks said to me.
I don't know of a good way to tell the difference between when to strike a hot iron and when to wait til it cools, but sometimes a experiencing a pattern of behavior can suggest a likely course.
Yeeks, that was difficult and awkward, and as SSSS suggested, that might mean this might not be the best thing to post. My intentions are to try to help all involved, so all please take what you will and leave what you will from this.
gg
Posted by muffled on December 8, 2008, at 21:11:49
In reply to Re: Blocked for 2 weeks » lucie lu, posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 20:57:02
nuttin wrong w/a momma bear being protective I reckon.
Kinda nice I reckon.
I be a momma bear w/my kids.
I protect my kids.
Posted by lucie lu on December 8, 2008, at 23:27:20
In reply to (((mammma bears))), posted by muffled on December 8, 2008, at 21:11:49
I second muffy's sentiments.Everyone has good intentions. It's just not always clear what to do with them. No perfect answer, just good questions.
Peace to all.
Lucie
Posted by Toph on December 8, 2008, at 23:38:22
In reply to Re: Blocked » Toph, posted by BayLeaf on December 8, 2008, at 20:27:51
> Toph - if you are referring to me...
>I wasn't. Between name changes and sporatic participation I have no idea who most people are. That used to not bother me.
>...It's a bummer how that project causes such paranoia.
>
Bay, if you were referring to me, it wouldn't be the first time I've acted paranoid here.
Posted by Bobby on December 9, 2008, at 0:17:54
In reply to Site guidelines, posted by Deputy Dinah on December 8, 2008, at 12:39:29
..but sometimes during battle--an officer must make a difficult order. "Do I try and save private X and lose the rest of the group---or save the rest of the soldiers in the group by sacrificing private X?" In theory---the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The chain of command is set up specifically to limit casualties. Some posts are indeed cries for help--and need to be addressed as such. But----who can predict the amount of posters who could also be triggered into making irreversible decisions by reading such dramatic events? Babble is a great place of support----but--in crisis--nothing beats real life help. Maybe it's a type of tough love--to push someone towards real life help by denying uncensored freedom here. I don't know. It is sad to see good people spiral downward---but I have to cling to the hope that someone in their lives will be there to catch them. I'm really really glad that I'm not in charge of inforcing the rules here----but they're there for a reason.
Posted by BayLeaf on December 9, 2008, at 5:59:06
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Toph on December 8, 2008, at 23:38:22
then I'm the paranoid one. seemed like my name was the only newish one in the thread.
bay
Posted by BayLeaf on December 9, 2008, at 6:03:24
In reply to (((mammma bears))), posted by muffled on December 8, 2008, at 21:11:49
i don't really know LLLL. her hurt just felt familiar. so does yours.
bay
Posted by Toph on December 9, 2008, at 6:54:42
In reply to Re: Blocked » Toph, posted by BayLeaf on December 9, 2008, at 5:59:06
No, my bad. I replied to your original post not thinking that you might think it was directed at you. Sorry.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2008, at 8:29:50
In reply to Re: This is so hard, posted by TherapyGirl on December 8, 2008, at 17:00:01
> I can definitely see everyone's viewpoint here and I think all make valid points. But I wish there was some way to, like twinleaf said, provide support for such an obvious cry of help AND keep the behavior from escalating so that everyone feels safe here.
>
> I understand where SSSS is because I've been there before. I hope she will work her way out of this place -- she's done it before and I suspect she will do it again. But I wish she didn't have to do it alone.TherapyGirl,
You wrote,[...I hope (that) she will {work her way out of} this place...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to refer to as {this place} and {work her way out of} that you hopw that she works her way out of. If you could clarify what you are wanting to mean here, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly for sometimes a {place} could mean a {state of mind} or a physical environment.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on December 9, 2008, at 10:33:54
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Toph on December 8, 2008, at 19:48:44
> No disrespect to any of those genuinely concerned for a friend, but how do we know for certain that any administrative thread for the immediate future isn't in some way polluted by the new research and pseudo participants?
I've also been thinking about that, Topher. That is one main reason that I decided to stay away from here as much as possible. I had to comment when I read your post.
The question could be "how would we know what is real about the administration's goals?
I look at PB more as a research project now than I did three years ago. Guinea pigs.
I could look for another forum..even a "more spirited" political one..right now I'm too lazy.
Posted by Phillipa on December 9, 2008, at 13:02:37
In reply to Re: Blocked » Toph, posted by fayeroe on December 9, 2008, at 10:33:54
I relate to that. Being lazy. Seemed to me only that poster was trying to joke despite feeling bad. Now that's only my opinion. I do feel the poster was upset to begin with. But didn't feel trying to be hurtful maybe should read it again. Phillipa
Posted by seldomseen on December 9, 2008, at 13:08:42
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Toph on December 8, 2008, at 19:48:44
Because we are not the subjects of the research study. There is no guinea pig factor here (although they are incredible cute).
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/861412.html
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 14:37:45
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by Phillipa on December 9, 2008, at 13:02:37
A couple of things, in no particular order and to no one in particular. First, a quick comment about whether board dynamics were being influenced by new people (via the "PB experiment," and my sincere apologies to any newcomers who might have joined through this route!) As a participant in the original admin discussion about that issue, I am sensitive to the issue of how new members might affect existing group dynamics. Interestingly, I have seen on the psych board only a few new posters since then, certainly nothing like the "deluge" we feared. With regard to the present situation we've been discussing, nearly all involved were regular posters, many long-time. So the "new poster" factor does not seem to have played any part here.
The second is that I think that a lot of what we are debating boils down to the role and administration of boundaries on Babble. That is what PB's guidelines are - just boundaries. And those of us who participate on the psych board should be VERY familiar with the concept of boundaries. While PB is not therapy, there are similarities. Therapeutic boundaries exist for the protection of both participants. They create a safe place where the work of therapy can be done. Where boundaries have collapsed, and there are unfortunately too many instances we are aware of, the consequences have been disastrous; the blocked poster is one who was profoundly (and wantonly, IMO) injured by a former T - an experience from which I think she is still having a hard time recovering from, and which is still a major source of her great pain.
So Babble is not therapy, but many of the dynamics are similar and that is why it works. Participants need safety above all to enable them to interact on a genuine and deep level with other Babblers, share deep and personal things, and participate in one anothers' growth and healing. We can disagree with one another and still remain safe because the board is boundaried. Without boundaries? I really believe this circle of safety, as in therapy, is destroyed. We can say that we should be able to handle "exceptions" but can we really? Who really knows where a boundary crossing or violation will lead? Or what the consequences will be for any individual? In therapy, boundary crossings usually start with the best of intentions, but in some cases may precede more flagrant and profound boundary violations which are very destructive to both the therapy and the participants. My point is, that we need to keep boundaries on Babble for our own and others' protection, and to ensure that the board remains a safe place where caring and healing can take place. So although we as individuals may not like rules much (believe me, I have issues with authority as much as anyone plus I have a *serious* mamma bear gene :) I have come to learn in therapy that boundaries really exist for everyone's protection. The point is not to ignore people in need, but to help them as much as possible *within the boundaried space.* This is not to say that other helpful actions can't be taken outside that boundaried space, e.g. other forms of personal communication (b-mail? chat?), and perhaps ways to do this should be more actively explored and facilitated in cases like this one. But I really believe that it is critical to keep reasonably intact boundaries in place to keep the PB "space" safe and functional for everyone and at all times. Once broken, hard to repair. There is too much at stake, the board is an invaluable resource for most of us, so let's protect it as well as each other. Safety is such a rare and valuable commodity in this world.
Lucie
Posted by Justherself54 on December 9, 2008, at 15:26:22
In reply to Re: Blocked, posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 14:37:45
What a great post. I've been on and off the boards for a few years now and have struggled with the "mama bear" syndrome also. Thank you, as it's helped me accept the boundaries of babble a little better.
Posted by TherapyGirl on December 9, 2008, at 18:35:52
In reply to Lou's request for clarification-pstvmnd?, posted by Lou Pilder on December 9, 2008, at 8:29:50
I meant for her to work her way out of the emotional place she is in.
Posted by Toph on December 9, 2008, at 18:57:10
In reply to Re: Blocked » Toph, posted by seldomseen on December 9, 2008, at 13:08:42
> Because we are not the subjects of the research study. There is no guinea pig factor here (although they are incredible cute).
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20081003/msgs/861412.htmlI prefer hamsters s. Getting furry Nikki for Christmas was one of my best Christmases ever. But I digress. I don't feel like a rodent. And I think, as misguided as Bob may be at times, that he is well-intentioned. I simply feel uneasy about 230 people observing and/or participating here who are doing so with completely different motivations than what made you and I become attached here. It changes the place like the preverbial butterfly wing theory, and it changes me and how I react. My hamster would bury himself in his cedar chips when I watched and run relentlessly on that damn wheel when I tried to sleep. Then there's the whole issue of spilling my guts to someone who is merely hoping for grist for a paper. Creeps me out.
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
In reply to Re: This is so hard » twinleaf, posted by Dinah on December 8, 2008, at 18:23:41
I was responding to your comments to me.
1. You pointed out to me that my comment "if I could have said something like, 'tell us how you are feeling, but don't provoke or attack others" " would be characterizing that poster in a negative fashion. Well, yes! I said I would have liked to have been able to say that, but could not because of the guidelines. In my original post, I pointed out that supportive, cautioning posts (yours were among the clearest and most supportive) to that poster were not effective because SSSS was so extremely upset that she couldn't really pay attention to them.. I mentioned that I would have liked to be able to use language that was a bit stronger, but knew THAT I COULD NOT DO SO BECAUSE OF THE SITE GUiDELINES. I was expressing the wish for either posters or deputies to have a broader range of options when there appears to be an emergency situation. I was very surprised and disappointed to be treated as though I did not know the rule about not using negative characterizations, when my knowledge of it was the basis of my writing about and hoping for more flexible rules in cases in which a poster is clearly extremely distressed. I am not alone in this view; several other posters to this thread expressed the same view.
2. You said to me, "I'd like to point out that other posters aren't therapists." I felt extremely belittled and put down by this comment. I know that I have never made any demands that any poster should be a therapist- to me, or to anyone else. I was inquiring about the possibilities of deputies and perhaps posters having slightly more flexibility in situations where posters are in extreme distress. I don't know if that would be helpful or possible, although I was hopeful that an open-minded dialogue about it might ensue, I hoped that the deputies would lead the way.
3. You also told me, "(posters) can help if they feel able to, but they can also feel hurt and distressed themselves. The needs and feelings of *all* posters are important." I felt very hurt and put down by this comment, because the assumption behind it is that I am insufficiently sensitive to know this. Every single post that I have ever written to Babble has included a clear acknowledgement of other posters' feelings and points of view. I have never criticized anyone for not responding, or responding differently than I might have hoped. In particular every post in this particular thread has included more than just empathy for SSSS' views as I understand them. They also include an awareness of how distressing some of the posts were to others, and how challenging it was for deputies to respond. It goes without saying that, in the most recent example, many people did not want to respond directly because they were distressed by what was happening. I have never written one word which could cause you to think otherwise. Because of that, it is very unpleasant and discouraging that you feel you need to remind me about such a basic behavior. A comment like yours implies that my participation here has involved a large degree of personal insensitivity to others. In reality, the exact opposite is true, both here and in my actual life.
4. You told me, " you keep referring to deputies and Dr. Bob as being rejecting." You are misreading what I actually said. I do not, and have never viewed either DR BOB OR ANY OF THE DEPUTIES as being rejecting. What I am saying is that the ACT OF BEING BLOCKED can feel rejecting to the person who has been blocked. Usually, blocks occur when uncomfortable feelings, anger among them, are running high, and running over. The experience of being cut off, and being unable to continue a dialogue or make reparations is painful. I can only speak for myself, but when I was blocked, I did feel ejected from my "tribe". I felt somehow guilty, ashamed and alone; the experience seemed to bring up a lot of painful feelings from long ago. I know that you and the other deputies can and do continue to feel concern and caring, and to stay in personal contact with blocked posters. No-one is accusing you of any cold, rejecting or impersonal behavior towards blocked posters- because there isn't any. But I hope you will recognize and understand that the experience of being blocked may in and of itself be extremely painful and lonely.
Although it is beyond my personal experience, I do think that posters occasionally become extremely upset, and try to push the deputies to block them because they feel that they are bad and deserve punishment. We have all seen instances of that. Because this can happen. it's good for deputies to be aware of these dynamics. This doesn't mean that the deputies have to be therapists. Everyone in positions of responsibility encounters these pressures. from executives to parents.
Before I am misunderstood once again, let me say that I do think that blocks are appropriate. I'd like to say once again, so as to be absolutely clear, that I do not, and have never felt that the deputies were being rejecting. They aren't. We absolutely need to have clear rules, and clear consequences for not following them. But that does not mean that people who are blocked do not suffer because of it- they do. I think that is why it is always a good idea to consider each situation as requiring individual treatment. When it is clear that a poster is really suffering, more thought could perhaps go towards using alternative methods for a longer period of time, even though a block might eventually become necessary. When someone appears hostile and destructive, and we don't have a clear sense of other feelings he/she may be struggling with, a quicker block might be appropriate.
I have taken quite a bit of time to respond to you, because you did not appear to understand the reasons for my initial post, above. It is extremely disappointing to me to have each point I made in trying to contribute to a discussion about a recent Babble event subtly distorted and misread so that it could be thrown back at me as an implicit criticism. In this one thread alone, I have been accused of not understanding the rule of remaining supportive, of expecting other posters to act as therapists, of being insensitive to, and ignoring the feelings of, other posters and of considering the deputies to be personally cold and rejecting towards blocked posters. Because every one of these allegations is false, I wanted to make as strong a case as I could for myself. I am pretty sure I will be the only one to do that, but that will be enough.
Posted by Nadezda on December 9, 2008, at 22:30:15
In reply to the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
The problem for the deputies and Bob is that when one poster writes uncivil posts, another poster(s) may well be hurt, and if there is no legitimate action taken to limit the hurtfulness, its quiet presence damages us all, and it often concretely ripples out so that many are caught in the immediate web of hurtfulness.
There were several angles of hurt in this and other instances of blocks, and, while I don't like the idea of blocking, I see that sometimes it is necessary to spare the community a lot of turmoil and pain.
I know we all feel for SSSS, but there are others involved who also need our concern. I'm sorry that the situation evolved as it did. But I believe that Dinah and Racer's actions were quite correct in this situation and that they acted in the interests of us all, as well as the posters directly involved.
Nadezda
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:27:41
In reply to the reasons for my post... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 19:40:21
TwinLeaf,
I am sorry that you felt so hurt and unhappy with Dinah's post. It seems to me that you have taken comments very much to heart than I think were made for all of us. Hey, I got, and deserved (sorry for that), the equivalent of a PBC, as did muffy. I haven't gone back to reread the whole thread but I never thought that anyone's comments were directed at you. I was a bit surprised, that in one of my posts where I was sympathizing with the deputies for having a tough job, that you in particular seemed to think that comment was aimed at you. It wasn't at all! In fact it was not at all aimed at any one person, and certainly not you. Sometimes we just respond to a general tone or viewpoint and it may be a composite of many expressed. That was the case with me. I won't speak for Dinah but the way her post read to me, that's how I took it.
The reason I'm saying this, TwinLeaf, is to express that you are anything but insensitive, unthoughtful or unknowledgeable. I have always thought quite the contrary about you, and I like you and enjoy reading your intelligent comments. I think you are regarded as a person of compassion and integrity. IMO you really shouldn't feel you have to defend your personal or posting qualities, I don't think they have ever been in question. Again, I am sorry you felt singled out and experience distress as a consequence.
Feelings have run high on all sides over this. I really believe that this is because everyone here cares so much, about SSSS, other posters, and the board as a whole. There has been lots of good and useful discussion. To everyone, I hope that we can feel that it is OK to express our feelings and views, then get back to the business of doing what we do on Babble. We are all good people trying to do the best we can.
All the best,
Lucie
Posted by twinleaf on December 9, 2008, at 23:40:51
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post..., posted by Nadezda on December 9, 2008, at 22:30:15
I agree with you. I do not have any disagreement with the deputies' actions, which I do think were necessary and thoughtfully carried out. In the case of this particular poster, SSSS, whose journey many posters feel they have been a part of, the elements of pain and suffering were so prominent that I thought it might be a pertinent time to have a discussion as to how one poster's personal distress, the feelings and needs of all other posters, and the regulations governing how the site is run might ALL be considered, with the aim and hope of maximizing support and helpfulness for everyone, and minimizing pain and hurt. I did have a personal bias in this- I would have liked to see a little more emphasis on flexibility in how these situations are handled. However, I was never critical of anything that the deputies, or anyone else, had done. At that point, I was principally interested in an open exchange of ideas. If any change at all were to come out of that, I assumed it would be at a much later time.
I was not expecting to be criticized, misunderstood and put down by a deputy for something as potentially constructive as that.
Posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:42:46
In reply to Re: the reasons for my post... » twinleaf, posted by lucie lu on December 9, 2008, at 23:27:41
I did just go back and rescan the thread. Clearly there were some exchanges between individuals in response to a particular point or points. But in these posts, including mine, the rest of the comments seemed very general and addressed to all. Or at least so I took it.
-L.
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.