![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 87 to 111 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 14:26:40
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » henrietta, posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
Perhaps you're experiencing a bit of unwarranted fear,too---the fear of rampant fear!
A couple of years ago the police in my town recommended that people not store all their Christmas presents in their unlocked cars in the mall parking lot. Turns out people were doing just that, and lo and behold, some people's presents were stolen.
Prudent precaution does not indicate rampant fear. It's merely prudent.
Posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » henrietta, posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
>I hope those who read my posts will interpret the motives as benevolently as possible,, since I mean no disrespect to people who are fearful and see dangers where there may not be as many as they imagine.
Of course, Nadezda.
You are part of a community and a decent community will care for all its members.For myself, I'm made nervous by mobile phones (gave up) and remote controls for TVs (mastered it!) so I fear Twtter and Facebook will remain unvisited by me.
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:25:21
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
> I don't want to put words in Bob's mouth, but maybe he's worried that Babble may cease to exist precisely because he doesn't make it accessible on and visible to people on facebook and twitter. Maybe he thinks the shape and structure of connection on the internet has changed and without making babble part of these new, dominant forms of communication, he's depriving it of new life. And maybe he believes that this is important enough to the survival and renewal of babble that he's willing to risk some of what he's created to create it in a better, more forward=looking way. Maybe he has some totally different motive-- of course.
>
> NadezdaMaybe some people liked the way this community was because it was untouched by social networking. Lot's of heavy discussion going on here. People may have also felt some sense of safety here w/o it being connected to the social networks?
Facebook and Twitter are tools for superficial communications. I see a lot of deep, personal dialogue here, but not on those sites. Yes, they are new methods of communication, but are they adding utility to anything at all? And they may be just a fad and go out of style just as quickly as they appeared...I can see the technology being useful for many things..but for social relationships, support--no, just don't see it.
This is meant to be a supportive community, and many members have expressed that this change is NOT supportive and has the potential to decrease safety or feelings of safety. Using that logic alone, I don't see why the change would be implemented.
Just because the site administrator (who by the way, doesn't post about his core issues/mental health issues) and thinks this change would be helpful....while the community supposedly being served thinks it is unhelpful, I think the administrator should give more weight to the community's wishes and not his personal wishes.
Of course, not everyone expressed their discontent with this change. A poll of members, if all active members responded to it, would determine what the community deems supportive or not.
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:36:09
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
Instead of complaining about this site, I'd actually like to create a new forum-a forum that gives the members the tools they think are most supportive.
I can't take on an endeavor like that while in school right now, but maybe someday.....
Anyone else up to the task?
Posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:43:17
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Sigismund on October 28, 2009, at 16:55:08
Sigi, I like your post. And Nadezda, I'm happy that you feel safe.
Kind regards,
fb
>
> Of course, Nadezda.
> You are part of a community and a decent community will care for all its members.
>
> For myself, I'm made nervous by mobile phones (gave up) and remote controls for TVs (mastered it!) so I fear Twtter and Facebook will remain unvisited by me.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:49:08
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 17:25:21
Psyh Chat--well said--I agree. Thank you for your post. This site is more in depth, more personal, and more helpful (for me) than any other I have visited. Why is that? What works about this site?--great questions which I think your post sheds light on.
fb
> Maybe some people liked the way this community was because it was untouched by social networking. Lot's of heavy discussion going on here. People may have also felt some sense of safety here w/o it being connected to the social networks?
>
> Facebook and Twitter are tools for superficial communications. I see a lot of deep, personal dialogue here, but not on those sites. Yes, they are new methods of communication, but are they adding utility to anything at all? And they may be just a fad and go out of style just as quickly as they appeared...I can see the technology being useful for many things..but for social relationships, support--no, just don't see it.
>
> This is meant to be a supportive community, and many members have expressed that this change is NOT supportive and has the potential to decrease safety or feelings of safety. Using that logic alone, I don't see why the change would be implemented.
>
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:26:20
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 17:49:08
Thanks floatingbridge :)
You know, I'm not "against" those sites or the people who wish to use them. It's not black and white thinking as someone alluded to earlier.
I do think those applications can be a quick and easy way to let all your friends/relatives know what you are up to by sending a comment or two. It's much easier than postal mail! I can see its usefulness for organizations more than "enhancing" social relations. In fact, I think the technology has much more potential than is currently being realized. For example, I could see a twitter like application used in a hospital for the staff to follow patients....Can think of lots of other potential uses.
But that doesn't mean its good for social relations. That remains to be seen - and it is being studied by various researchers. How many people are picking up the phone or spending time with friends vs. how many are sitting behind their computer typing on facebook or twitter, abbreviating their conversations, etc. It might someday prove to be a barrier to interpersonal relations. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
The Obama campaign was very successful using the social network technology. They had a comprehensive website for it. Lot's of detail, forum conversations, and links to 'real' meetings. There was collaboration going on - not just superficial one sentence Twitter-like conversations. There is a big difference.
I think of it mostly along the lines of how Phillipa framed the concept - Facebook & Twitter are used for entertainment for the most part, and as I said, superficial social contact.
To get the best of the technology, it seems it would be more useful to link Babble with non-profit organizations, educational sources, and other mental-health related networks. It just doesn't make sense to link it to Facebook & Twitter - it even seems to minimize the supportive nature of the forum. Encourages or turns it into something to be simply "passed around" rather than USED. And as we are starting to see, it discourages people from in-depth conversations and encourages the superficial style communication already rampant among the social networks. Several people already said they would not offer as much personal support.
Also - just because something is popular, doesn't mean everyone should jump on the bandwagon. I mean, McCarthyism spread as fast as social networks, and it also was partly responsible for the Vietnam War - a war that was known to be unwinnable. Look all the death and horror popularity caused there. Of course McCarthyism died out, well not completely. But for the most part.
I think these social networks can be considered a lot of hype though. Remember how the news media gave so much attention to McCain using twitter? It was so silly. I wonder how much Twitter grew after that. There is so much hype going on - and a lot of it just fueled by advertising and consumerism. Money being the incentive. I'm not surprised at all of the content of the article you posted - about all the 'quiz' applications on Facebook, etc. inserted to convertly collect personal information. There is so much controversy going on with the internet and privacy--so much yet to be resolved. Legislation will eventually follow to somehow protect people from harm.
Of course these are just my opinions.
Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2009, at 18:33:40
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » floatingbridge, posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:26:20
Yes, and very interesting and thoughtful opinions they are, too.
You always make me think. Thanks for that :-)
Posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 18:39:01
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » floatingbridge, posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:26:20
Psych Chat,
I facebook, myself--no twitter, though--just had no use for it. I think this last post of yours is even more enlightening. I love your suggestion of linking or 'outreach' to other organizations. I think that could really be of benefit to various communities.
To make a long post short, I really think your posts show an understanding of how various networks function w/ an eye toward optimizing our site. Thank you again. More food for thought.
fb
I keep saying to myself that I'm not going to post on this thread--guess I really care about what happens and our community's well-being :-)
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:47:52
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 18:39:01
Yes, doesn't it seem useful to link someone who is having suicidal thoughts to crises-based non-profit organizations - so a task force armed with resources to help can immediately be linked to the person on this site?
Lot's of potential to strenghthening a support community with technology. Can think of so many things that can be very useful. It doesn't make sense, however, to implement technological applications that many don't deem useful and see as devaluing to this site. Why not ask the members served by this community what *they* want?
Sigh. I feel the same way - interested in bettering this community. It's a shame when things are changed in a manner that serves little to no utility - according to many of the users of this site.
Who, but the consumers/supporters, would know what is and isn't best for this site?
Posted by psych chat on October 28, 2009, at 18:49:53
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2009, at 18:33:40
10der, you are a sweetie. I am just a bit upset at the possibility of losing this community.
I think just about every organization has more potential or can be improved. It irks me to see the site devalued.
I will put away my megaphone now. lol
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2009, at 12:13:56
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 28, 2009, at 18:39:01
> Why do you see people choosing to tweet someone else's post? Would they be tweeting it to their friends and coworkers? Will they understand the risk to that?
> I don't know why anyone on earth would wish to link my posts to anything, or tweet my posts
They might consider it a particularly thoughtful and intelligent post (even if you don't). Or they might want to help you find support and information.
What risk do you see?
> You didn't answer my question. Does this have anything to do with the proposal that is in, on using social media to build an online community? If so, oughtn't you use social media to build a *new* online community?
Sorry, I didn't know which tweet you meant. No, this is separate from that, that is in fact using social media to build a new online community.
> Also, by linking to Twitter and Facebook terms of service, are you implying that you bear no responsibility for use of our posts through buttons you edited our posts to contain? I don't know whether you have legal responsibility, but in providing those buttons you have, in my opinion, made yourself morally responsible for their use.
>
> DinahI take responsibility for providing the buttons, but I see those who use them as responsible for how they use them.
--
> In my opinion, ultimately all that has been shattered here is an illusion of privacy - expedited by the presence of two little buttons at the bottom of each post. It's almost funny.
>
> Seldom.And related to privacy is safety. Babble has never been private because of restricted access, like a gated community. But it's safe because it's anonymous -- and civil.
--
> Why not place a nice big icon for sharing on the Babble Welcome page? I would not feel my promise not to be twittered was violated, because I would not feel singled out. Maybe share icons at the top of the board pages, too.
>
> fbButtons on other pages is a great idea, thanks!
--
> If a person was suffering and sought help from another after being raped/sexually abused, and the person they sought help from went and told a bunch of people that person was raped -it WOULD be considered socially unacceptable and sick or twisted.
>
> psych chat> Case in point, our fellow babbler in distress last night. ... The way the Babble community responded was compassion in action.
>
> fbI agree, this community really was great. Wouldn't it be nice if a suicidal Facebook or Twitter user joined Babble, felt the compassion here, and changed their mind?
--
> I feel betrayed by you
>
> I feelthat as a professional md who specializes in mental health your changes are not to be made lightly but you often act in a way that without knowing what is in your head or heart we are left to feel powerless. ... I went looking on Twitter for your site and I came across just in the search engine people calling each other vulgar language, it is obvious there is no civility guidelines for that site and yet you(Dr. Bob), who takes your own civility guidelines quite seriously ask us to be open about our words and our own issues just being posted there without our knowledge and on sites that civility is not a concern. I can't understand this.
>
> Are you, Dr. Bob, concerned at all about how we feel?
>
> Good luck with Babble Dr Bob, I think it might be a sinking ship.Thanks for using I-statements above. I understand you feel betrayed and powerless. And I'm concerned about how you feel, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to change my mind.
Facebook and Twitter may not take civility as seriously, but you don't have to go there if you don't want.
If the ship is sinking, it's time for some changes!
> I don't think it is fair of Dr Bob to say is this because you have anxiety issues coming up, it implies that you are mental health issue person and your concerns are not valid.
>
> rskSorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had anxiety issues. Anxiety isn't always a symptom of an issue, it can also be a normal response to change. And to feelings of exposure and vulnerability and betrayal and powerlessness.
--
> To get the best of the technology, it seems it would be more useful to link Babble with non-profit organizations, educational sources, and other mental-health related networks.
>
> psych chat> I love your suggestion of linking or 'outreach' to other organizations. I think that could really be of benefit to various communities.
>
> I keep saying to myself that I'm not going to post on this thread--guess I really care about what happens and our community's well-being :-)
>
> fbLink with them how?
Thanks for caring about this community and thinking of other changes that might help, I appreciate that.
--
> One thing that saddens me is the extent to which people here are unconsciously showing such possibly hurtful attitudes about the 'rest of the world"-- as if we --and "they"--as human beings didn't share a lot of the same pain, and as if these "other" people were likely to be rubberneckers, voyeurs, somehow not worthy of being aware of our thoughts, or part of "our" community.
>
> We all share even a distrust and anxiety about others-- but I hope that we all can find it in ourselves to remember that we share with these others a lot of the same human experiences, hopes, fears, and losses.
>
> Nadezda> I am sorry that you read into my comments that I've divided the world into 'us' and 'them'. ... As I question myself now as I write, I find that I do not believe the world is divided as such. However, as a person w/ my own experiences, I have learned how to take care of myself in a world that can be, at times, quite insensitive.
>
> fbHmm, in addition to feeling anxious about strangers and expecting the future to be like the past, might we also be seeing in them what we don't like about ourselves?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 29, 2009, at 12:29:53
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2009, at 12:13:56
> > Why do you see people choosing to tweet someone else's post? Would they be tweeting it to their friends and coworkers? Will they understand the risk to that?
>
> > I don't know why anyone on earth would wish to link my posts to anything, or tweet my posts
>
> They might consider it a particularly thoughtful and intelligent post (even if you don't). Or they might want to help you find support and information.
>
> What risk do you see?I see the risk of those who read Babble, and the Babble administrator disrespecting me by disrespecting my wishes.
I see the risk of feeling fury and rage that anyone would violate my wishes with regard to my post.
If people respect my posts or me as a person, they ought to respect me enough to respect my wishes about the distribution of my thoughts and feelings. If they wish me to receive support, they could support me by respecting my wishes. If they wish me to receive education, they can suggest that *I* put my story out there. Are you seriously suggesting that people should tweet the posts of others to obtain for them support and education from places other than Babble?
I'm leaving, as I already said on Social.
I'm sorry I'm leaving under these circumstances. Please please don't tell me I need to do what is best for me. Please don't tell me that you appreciate what I've brought to Babble. If you appreciated it, you wouldn't have driven me away. Given the number of people on the no tweet list, you had to have considered a certain number of posters an acceptable loss. I do not feel valued or appreciated as an acceptable loss.
I had appreciated your providing this place for me to learn and grow. But unfortunately, all my posts here are now just a potential source of humiliation and shame.
I'm really sorry it ended this way.
Posted by psych chat on October 29, 2009, at 18:30:29
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2009, at 12:13:56
This response makes me want to vomit.
I cannot believe the mental health doctor who runs this board has absolutely no capacity for empathy.
It's now obvious why you are not involved in clinical practice. It is not possible for a person with no empathy to be a psychiatrist.
Posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
In reply to sickening » Dr. Bob, posted by psych chat on October 29, 2009, at 18:30:29
> I cannot believe the mental health doctor who runs this board has absolutely no capacity for empathy.
I'm not sure you or I or anyone who does not know Dr. Bob intimately, or isn't his doctor, therapist, etc., can accurately make that assessment. I think Dr. Bob has the capacity for empathy. I have experienced it personally when I was a deputy. I have been, though, disappointed and dismayed by the types of situations where I think/feel he *ought* to be able to "see the light" and feel more depth and breadth of empathy (enough to make him seriously reconsider decisions?)
This would be one of those times. I'm not sure at this point if he is missing the points posters are so passionately trying to make, sees some points but strongly disagrees, or something else. I believe he cares about Babble, but right now the way he expresses that and the way we want him to do so are at serious, serious odds. It feels so, so sad to me :-(
> It's now obvious why you are not involved in clinical practice. It is not possible for a person with no empathy to be a psychiatrist.
Well, he *is* a psychiatrist, regardless...and why do you think he is not involved in clinical practice?
Posted by Phillipa on October 29, 2009, at 21:55:33
In reply to Re: sickening » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
Too busy trying to dig up money for the drug companies by upsetting some. I remember the time on this board he said he was into computers. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2009, at 23:28:48
In reply to Re: sickening, posted by Phillipa on October 29, 2009, at 21:55:33
> I cannot believe the mental health doctor who runs this board has absolutely no capacity for empathy.
>
> psych chat> Too busy trying to dig up money for the drug companies
>
> PhillipaPlease don't post anything that could lead others (such as me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 4:59:05
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dinah on October 29, 2009, at 12:29:53
> I see the risk of those who read Babble, and the Babble administrator disrespecting me by disrespecting my wishes.
>
> I see the risk of feeling fury and rage that anyone would violate my wishes with regard to my post.I'm respecting the "no twitter" list and wouldn't share or tweet your posts against your wishes.
But yes, there's the risk that someone else might. But that's always been possible. And I don't see how it can be prevented. With the link to the "do not share/tweet list", people can at least see what your wishes are. I guess in theory the buttons could automatically check the list themselves, but I have no control over how they work.
> Are you seriously suggesting that people should tweet the posts of others to obtain for them support and education from places other than Babble?
I'm not suggesting that anyone share or tweet your posts against your wishes.
But I do think someone could tweet a post to try to help another poster. For example, the poster might ask a question and not get an answer, someone might tweet it, and someone else might see it, know the answer, and come here to reply. Wouldn't that be helpful to the poster?
> I'm sorry I'm leaving under these circumstances. Please please don't tell me I need to do what is best for me. Please don't tell me that you appreciate what I've brought to Babble. If you appreciated it, you wouldn't have driven me away.
I'd be sorry if you left under these circumstances, too. Adding the buttons even though we disagree about them doesn't mean I haven't appreciated your contributions!
Bob
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 9:30:50
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 4:59:05
You are tweeting all of the newbies posts automatically from this website. How do they have a chance to opt out if they don't even know you--a doctor--are doing this? Maybe they think the icons are there for THEM to be able to tweet or facebook their comment. When I first came here, I did not look at the Admin board for months. They might not either.
Also, in seeing this forum is run by a psychiatrist, people might think they you would respect for their safety and privacy, as much as possible, on a public forum. I know I initially did. I would never in a million years think a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, would be tweeting my mental health related discussions out to his 200+ followers. In most of my past experiences, my PDocs and/or therapists had the utmost concern for my safety and confidentiality and honored that. Who would ever think a psychiatrist would be doing what you are doing?
You are also tweeting the comments of those who asked not to be tweeted when you tweet others' posts - because people who asked you not to tweet them have replied in some cases. In doing this, and the above, you are discouraging others to respond and support others, making it less likely a newbie or another person will get help.
It's common to see those icons at the bottom of blogs (I don't recall ever seeing them linked to individual comments on forums-though I would guess it likely would in some forums). I had always thought they were for those who wish to tweet or facebook or whatever their own comments. I've never seen a forum administrator using those icons to redistribute others comments. But I mostly see them on blogs, not on support forum individual posts.
"...someone might tweet it, and someone else might see it, know the answer, and come here to reply. Wouldn't that be helpful to the poster
A new person who arrives here to find help from a mental health community may be in a crises and so they choose to come here to post on a forum for mental health issues. If they thought it was helpful to tweet or facebook their mental health concerns, they would already be doing this. And we have all come here because, as we said, we do not think it is helpful to tweet or facebook our intimate thoughts, distress, or mental health discussions.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:04:15
In reply to Re: sickening » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
I meant practicing psychiatrist, not psychiatrist...
"I'm not sure you or I or anyone who does not know Dr. Bob intimately, or isn't his doctor, therapist, etc., can accurately make that assessment."
You are right, 10der, and I was referring to how I perceive him to be only based upon his behavior on this forum, and after knowing 2 people in my life who do not have empathy. After my experience having conversations with people who have that trait, it's quite easy for me to identify the pattern. I was shocked to see his brief comment below in response to Dinah's leaving - Dinah who has been his loyal deputy for how long?? But yes, I do not know him outside of here to be able to know if this is true about him outside of what I see here...
Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that it doesn't seem like he has any understanding of our concerns? I mean, he still hasn't addressed some of the 'big' questions - examples:
If the purpose of this community is support, and most of us have stated his recent actions are unsupportive, then why is he still doing this?
Also, he has stated over and over he wants Babble to be a civil environment. However, Dinah was basically recently bullied off this board! He did not even address this (unless I missed it somewhere). The icons have created uncivilty. Dinah was so upset that people were either clicking the icons of her comments, or linking them to facebook accounts. She was CLEARLY bullied - yet he did nothing that I could see. Maybe it would be reasonable to say this is not fact; maybe it *just happened* to be her posts where people accidentally clicked or tested those icons. I am doubting that, though. It seemed the more she got upset about this, the more people-or a person-were clicking the icons under her posts. These icons have already created an uncivil environment.
I tend to see if a person's ACTIONS match their WORDS. You can tell alot more about people by comparing these 2 factors, rather than simply forming an opinion according to words said.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
In reply to Re: sickening » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
And 10der, perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts. That way, people could not be bullied, etc.
Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"? Except to track the user....
Other sites use those logons, in part, so people can select their personal security and privacy options. Those logon ids also place one's comments under a security layer that allow what the member says on the forum to not be searchable by google, etc.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
In reply to Re: sickening » 10derHeart, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
> perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
>
> Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Thanks for proposing an alternative!
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 30, 2009, at 14:54:18
In reply to Re: sickening » 10derHeart, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
**This is redirected from psycholgy thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/923496.html> > Somehow the Twittering/Facebooking thing just feels more voyeuristic or something. Before at least we knew people who found us had actually found us because they were searching for people with common issues.
> >
> > TherapyGirl
>
> Anxiety is a natural response to change, and I think the reaction here is in part a sign of cohesiveness and a desire to protect this community from disruption. Like you, however, Facebook and Twitter users are real people who can benefit from support and education. Sharing and tweeting might lead them to the many thoughtful and intelligent posts here, and then they might join Babble and contribute new perspectives and energy. I think good can come of this -- for current posters, for new posters, and for this community as a whole. I'd like to ask you to try to be open to that possibility.* I think TG makes a valid point(HI!!! TG!!!)
As to the rest, reasonable people can disagree...
We can help some people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Quality vs quantity....
etc.
Bob, bigger is NOT always better.
We had a pretty tight group who we got to know and come to trust. We knew who each other was, there was sameness.
Having hordes descend into a group is NOT useful. Its TOO much. Would you consider having group therapy groups of a hundred people??? NO, the intimacy factor would be gone. There would not be enuf time to adress and include all the people. People would invariebly feel(legitimately) left out.
So if you have hordes of people, we can never get to know them all. This forum has lost what made it so extra special. Made it a COMMUNITY. Now its going to just be a busy marketplace. You are not going to get the same type of content. You are not going to get the depth that was here.> > So I am sorry I said things perhaps wrongly.
> > Still, after all this, I don't understand Bob, I just don't. Maybe I would rather I NOT understand him :( I'd rather not know...
> >
> > Muffled
>
> Muffled, thanks. And thanks, 10der, for showing her how she might interpret things more charitably.
>
> May I ask why you might not want to understand me?*becuase I always like to see the best in people....
*becuase in some part of my mind I have an idealized image of you that I would hate to lose. I don't want to taint my good memories of Babble. Though I don't know whether you can understand what I am getting at. But thats OK I guess, its who you are. We are oil and water, we do not mix.> I'm not sure our agendas are so different. I want this to be a supportive and educational site. And I welcome new perspectives and energy. Does anybody else?
*"I want this to be a supportive and educational site "....Bob, IT WAS?!?!?!('cept for blocking issues...)
> Are all of you opposed to new "customers"? (Reasonable people can disagree.)
* I said it above- there IS such a thing as too many....
I was always happy to welcome newbies that stumbled upon babble, and perhaps lurked awhile, then came and joined in. There was a natural ebb and flow, but slow and steady growth it seemed. I wanted to help, I could have helped you, but you are too inconsistant, you(Bob) are unhelpable....
> If our agendas aren't so different and we (more or less) agree on the goals of support, education, and new perspectives and energy, then the next question is how we get there.*I agree w/support and education....but I thot there were enuf perspectives already, and plenty enuf energy.
> I seem not to have gone about this very wisely. I didn't intend to cause anxiety, hurt, frustration, or anger, and I'm sorry I have.*this is my thots on this.... http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090813/msgs/923528.html
> It's always been possible to let others know about posts here. And I don't see how it can be prevented. With the link to the "do not share/tweet list", people can at least see what your wishes are. I guess in theory the buttons could automatically check the list themselves, but I have no control over how they work.
*You have made it too easy. I feel on display. I am not comfortable here. Who the heck is gonna read thru alla the do not tweets???????
> Any ideas on how we can move forward (more or less) together?
* I can't be here. What you want, and what I want, are too different.
Sorry.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 16:32:48
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
I can only speak for myself, but I would guess having that option/setting installed - from the registration/update registration - to have or not have Twitter/Facebook linking icons at the bottom of one's posts would keep people here and allow one post more supportively, and possibly bring back those who left.
For new users - as far as opting out rather than in - that should work as long as it is CLEARLY stated (as opposed to being covertly imbedded into some jargon) their posts could be linked to Facebook/Twitter using the icons if they choose to not opt out. You should also tell them their initial post will be tweeted out by you to welcome them. Having the opt out feature may also enable you to sort via some kind of filter to aggregate those comments you cannot include in your research (if the research material was linked to their personal Facebook accounts, thereby identifying the research subject).
Even with that change, having thought about this situation in depth, I personally would still be reluctant to post any information concerning my mental health issues and would not be able to be as supportive with others, because the level of confidentiality/privacy and security is lower here than most mental health forums.
But that change may work for most people. It could have prevented Dinah from leaving. Since you track cookies, etc., I'd think there was some way to find out who was doing that to her, who kept clicking on the icons of her posts, so they could get a PBC from you. Unless that was a coincidence, that was bullying. And MUCH worse uncivilty than others who I've seen receive PBCs.
I still think that as a psychiatrist bound by ethics, you should provide reasonable precautions to preserve safety, confidentiality, and security at your forum - allowing people to edit/delete posts and a layer of security to prevent everyone's post from showing up on Google. Actually, as a medical professional, your precautions, imo, should be above average - but at present, they are below average.
I will continue to advocate for those features for mental health forums, especially this one. It should, imo, be a requirement for all health-related forums (I'm not going to state all the reasons-but clearly, employment is a huge factor). Mental health forums should be a priority due to reasons stated by the APA, obvious reasons.
You might still have some concerns about legal action, however, being that people with a certain level of mental health instability cannot actually 'consent' to some of your actions.
Thanks for being receptive to that idea.
> > perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
> >
> > Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> Bob
Posted by floatingbridge on October 30, 2009, at 19:08:46
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
Yes, this seems like an excellent solution. I really hope this option is put into place. I would be satisfied.
fb
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> 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.