![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 89 to 113 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:55:18
In reply to PB History, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:33:20
It might be helpful to hear from some members of the 2000 Board on this. I am of the impression, maybe entirely wrong, that many of the 2000 Board members simply don't use any of the Babble sites anywhere near as much as they used to, including the 2000 Board. There may be many reasons for this which are unrelated to the site, or at least unrelated to the 2000 Board.
While it's nice to take a break and come back again to some familiar names, I can also say that for me anyway, it's very hard to come back and get back into the rhythm of the Board. The longer you're away, the harder it is to feel comfortable returning. While Board participation yields obvious benefits for many of us, it's tough to sustain those benefits and connections unless you're actively here.
Is it possible that the more time one spends on a restricted Board, the less time they spend on an unrestricted Board AND at some point the restricted Board person might feel too disconnected from the people on the unrestricted Boards to jump back in?
My posited theory here, poorly articulated, is that members of smaller boards might find themselves drifting away from PB altogether unless 1) they've continued to participate fairly actively on the unrestricted boards; or 2) whatever small board they are on continues to stay active.
Just a theory
Mair
Posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:56:12
In reply to Re: small town groups » mair, posted by henrietta on January 24, 2005, at 20:08:49
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
In reply to And another thing, posted by mair on January 24, 2005, at 21:55:18
> by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think. So you really already have several "small town" boards.
They may feel like small towns to the regulars, but those who don't post there regularly, or even at all, might wish they could be more involved...
> This tells me that it's not size that you're intrigued with, so much as restrictions on use.
People do seem to hate the idea of restrictions!
Say there's a park. Should picnics there be open to everyone?
> > > 5. What happens if a member of a small board drops out or decides he or she needs to take a break from the Boards? Does he or she lose the spot? If there is an opening, who fills it?
> >
> > If access is restricted, maybe it would be more fair if posters did? And they might be considered to have dropped out if they haven't posted for a while.
>
> This is a tough one because people take breaks from Babble all the time, in fact many of us see breaks as being beneficial, and sometimes they're necessitated by personal circumstances or recommended by Ts.Hmm... So maybe "a while" should be a relatively long time? The more spots that stayed open, the less active the board would be...
What if people could keep their spots, but the size of the group were then increased?
> > Maybe one way of looking at it would be, in a small town, it's generally easier to get to know your neighbors. And in the big city, it's generally easier to find something (in this case, information). So with a combination, you could have both neighbors you know and access to information.
>
> Here's a problem with your analogy. I live in a small town, and the notion that you get to know your neighbors more easily in small towns is a myth perpetuated by people who live in cities.Have you lived in a big city, too? And found it just as hard, or harder, to get to know your neighbors there?
Maybe it's another myth, but I do think this site, at least, did have a different feel when it was smaller.
> I also think this will make the Board seem incredibly less inviting ... You can restrict us from posting on certain boards; you can't restrict us from reading posts on restricted boards. So you're going to increase the number of instances where someone feels that they're on the outside, looking in.
Here's a projective test I just made up. Visualize a park that's being used for a number of different picnics. Do you feel:
a. Like leaving because you're excluded by the people there.
b. Like staying to have your own picnic.> Maybe if the interest isn't there, the concept won't really go anywhere.
I agree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating....
> My posited theory here ... is that members of smaller boards might find themselves drifting away from PB altogether unless 1) they've continued to participate fairly actively on the unrestricted boards; or 2) whatever small board they are on continues to stay active.
>
> MairI agree, but now there's only 1, so the addition of 2 would increase the chance of them staying, wouldn't it?
Also, if their small town board didn't stay active, they could move to a different one...
----
> I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join... "You can't say you can't play."
What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
> I just don't think it's particularly polite to have boards for public view and private consumption.
How about private picnics in a public park?
> How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns.
OK, gated communities. Here's another projective test. Visualize a gated community. Now visualize yourself. Did you place yourself:
a. Inside the gated community.
b. Outside.----
> Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
> jujubeHow broke it is may be in the eyes of the beholder...
----
OK, so my idea is that some posters would like the feel of a small town board. I was thinking the way to find out would be to open some new boards and:
1. Impose a limit on their size.
But I suppose there are other potential approaches. For example:
2. Let their members decide what size they want them to be.
3. Just see to what size they grow "on their own".
Would those be more palatable? Or are there even better alternatives? Thanks, everyone, for your help in thinking this through...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
> Maybe it's another myth, but I do think this site, at least, did have a different feel when it was smaller.
Is that it, Dr. Bob? Nostalgia? It would be a better reason than research. You can't go back, you know. You can't recreate something that is past within something that has moved on. Maybe this isn't what you wanted Babble to be, but it's what it is. You'd have better luck starting a new site, unlinked to Babble, and doing it all over again.
> Here's a projective test I just made up. Visualize a park that's being used for a number of different picnics. Do you feel:
>
> a. Like leaving because you're excluded by the people there.
> b. Like staying to have your own picnic.You did indeed make that up. It's not even roughly analagous. Babble isn't an accomodation. It's a community. People don't come here because it's an accomodation. People come here because it's a community. It's *not* a park. Can't you see that? I'm crying to you - why can't you see that Babble is not a park! Parks are nice. Communities are nice. Babble is a community, not a park. Yahoo is a park. Oh please, Dr. Bob. Try to see the difference between Babble and Yahoo.
> > I was taught, and I teach my son, that it is rude to have conversations in public that others can not join... "You can't say you can't play."
>
> What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
>
Then it would be a right jolly game.
> > How about calling it what they are. Gated communities, not small towns.
>
> OK, gated communities. Here's another projective test. Visualize a gated community. Now visualize yourself. Did you place yourself:
>
> a. Inside the gated community.
> b. Outside.I can't answer that within the civility guidelines.
> Would those be more palatable? Or are there even better alternatives? Thanks, everyone, for your help in thinking this through...
>
> BobBetter would be removing restrictions from the table. Better would be creating so many little esoteric boards that you could accomplish your objective (if your objective is size) without rudeness. Don't list them all on the main set of links. Have one link leading to a submenu for "small discussion groups" or something. Let the posters choose the topic, if you wish. Don't monitor them for civility guidelines, if you wish. A poster could suggest whatever small discussion group they wanted, for people who love dogs, or people who live in Montana. It could be an area that charges fees, or an area with separate registration, or whatever would suit your purpose - without being rude and without excluding people.
Dr. Bob, Babble is not a park. Gated communities are not small towns. They're not picnics. Gated communities are dividers. Please see that if your goal is truly not to study restrictions that there are less offensive ways to meet your goal! Babble is not a park. It's a group of people who gather together for a common purpose. It's a school, or a church, or if you wish a very large therapy group. Imagine a church allowing Sunday School classes having socials where people could watch the party but not enter. Or a school having clubs that weren't open to all based on nothing more than whimsy, but whose meetings were on school grounds during recess.
Why can't you see!!! You may be providing a service by offering server space for this community. You *are* providing a service and we thank you. But Babble is more than the server space. We don't *love* a server space. We love a community. Don't break the community into gated areas. Don't divide the community. Please. Please, I beg you.
Posted by saw on January 25, 2005, at 7:42:53
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
I can't believe I started this. I wish I had never asked about reading other boards.
Dr Bob - please forget I ever asked. Please.
Sabrina
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:04:21
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by saw on January 25, 2005, at 7:42:53
Sabrina, Please don't blame yourself. This is an old old idea of Dr. Bob's. And an old old point of contention between us. Nothing you did was the cause. I'm sure Dr. Bob just thought it was time to reopen the issue.
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:18:11
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
I clearly care about Babble. I know you do too. And transference quite aside, I care very much about you, based on the part of you you've been willing to share with us. I realize I don't know all of you.
My therapist sometimes says he gets frustrated with me because I don't listen as much as I try to prove my point. I say I get the same feeling from him. And he has the grace to agree. I see something similar going on here.
I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand. I think it's worth understanding, and I'm willing to invest the energy to understand. I'm even (reluctantly) ready to put aside my moral objections to restrictions long enough to try to understand.
I get glimpses now and again that intrigue me. The fact that you put enough thought into it to consider different background colors for different boards. Your mention of how things used to be on Babble.
Can you do what you've been asking others to do lately? Take a risk, expose a bit of yourself, and tell us what small town boards mean to you without trying to convince us that they'd be good for Babble?
I care about you, Dr. Bob. I may not know Bob Hsiung, but I know Dr. Bob enough to care. I don't like to fight or feel frustrated or angry.
Can we stop trying to convince each other long enough to listen and try to understand and try to reflect back that understanding? Then we can go back to trying to convince each other. :)
(Although I realize my impotence. Trying to convince you is all I have, you know.)
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 10:13:43
In reply to Dr. Bob, could we try something?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:18:11
One thing many people notice when reading the archives is that when Babble was much smaller you used to participate more. Babble's a terrific community, and perhaps it's frustrating to you to feel that you can't really participate in it any more? That if you answer one post, the expectation will be that you'll answer many and you just can't physically do that because there's not enough time in the day? And if you join in some conversations and not others, you'll be considered playing favorites?
I could be completely off base here, but I think it would be frustrating to want to laugh at a joke, or join in a conversation and feel constrained by circumstances to watch from an Olympian distance.
I remember back to high school and college. There were some teachers who managed to maintain respect and order while also participating in the classroom community. So I think it is possible to do.
If I'm completely nuts here, feel free to tell me so. I don't have a large data pool, so I won't be offended. I'm just trying to understand.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
In reply to An impertinent question, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 10:13:43
I spent all my life feeling like I didn't fit in anywhere.
I am deeply afraid that Babble is now going to prove I was right.
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
Is it my impertinent question that makes you feel like you don't fit in? :)
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 25, 2005, at 20:46:00
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
Dear Aunti Mel....
I am concerned.
What is going on?
We can't lose you.
you are important to my well being.
my best to you
Jai Narayan
Posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 20:55:17
In reply to Auntie Mel?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
Have I offended in some way? You never answered my "I miss you" post on Social, but I'm trying hard to be less self centered, and decided to assume you hadn't seen it.
But I do miss you and enjoy your company. If perchance I have in any way offended, I would like to have a chance to make amends?
On the other hand, I also perfectly understand just not feeling well.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2005, at 21:44:37
In reply to horrible, horrible, horrible, posted by AuntieMel on January 25, 2005, at 16:40:41
My interpretation of Auntie Mel's post was that she was expressing support for not having gated communities. That implementing gated communities would result in her feeling unwelcome.
Of course I have no idea really.
Hopefully she will come back to clarify...
Posted by jujube on January 25, 2005, at 23:44:01
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2005, at 3:55:29
> > Unless I sm missing something integral to this debate, I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> >
> > jujube
>
> How broke it is may be in the eyes of the beholder...
>
> BobI don't disagree with you, as I am sure that you will not disagree with me that it not needing fixing is also in the eye of the beholder(s). And, with all due respect, it would appear that those beholders who seem happy with the status quo have made their views known, but the beholder who sems to believe a change may be necessary, has not.
I guess at this point in a policy debate (which this is to some degree), the beholder who feels it is broke would do a number of things: describe the purpose(s) for which it was created and the goals the creater hoped to achieve by creating it; the positives and negatives of its evolution; how its evolution has either enhanced or taken away from its ability to fulfill the purpose for which it was created and options on how to improve it so that it can continue to achieve the goals of its creater while meeting the needs of its users.
Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
Anyway, just wanted to respond to your comment.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
In reply to Re: gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by jujube on January 25, 2005, at 23:44:01
> I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
>
> DinahI just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
--
> Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
>
> jujubeThanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 0:50:55
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
Posted by saw on January 26, 2005, at 1:36:35
In reply to Re: gated communities » saw, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 9:04:21
Posted by jujube on January 26, 2005, at 1:50:01
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
> > I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
>
> --
>
> > Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
> >
> > jujube
>
> Thanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
>
> BobFirst, I think Dinah said it best and made an extremely valid suggestion when she said: "Can you do what you've been asking others to do lately? Take a risk, expose a bit of yourself, and tell us what small town boards mean to you without trying to convince us that they'd be good for Babble?" That, I think, could be part of your packaging.
I won't presume to know what the concept means to you, but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that they would not really be "gated communities" or a "quiet park on a lake", but rather nice, cozy rooms. Kinda of like what happens at a house party - people start breaking off into smaller groups to different rooms to have more intimate conversations, while maintaining the comfortable notion that they can all join together in the same room when the need arises and start mixing it up again.
So, I guess you would need to package it in such a way that it feels safe, comfortable and accessible.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but it is almost 3 a.m. where I am, and I think I may actually almost be ready to fall asleep now. So, it's best if I quit while I can still spell at least.
Posted by jujube on January 26, 2005, at 3:12:22
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
your name. And they're always glad you came. ...
That's what I think of when I think of the 2000 board. Is that where you are going with your vision of smaller boards?
Sleep still eludes me, and now I am just getting corny and even more stupid. I'll shut up now.
Posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 4:47:30
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
And not unexpected.
Posted by mair on January 26, 2005, at 8:30:16
In reply to Message received Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 4:47:30
I'm pretty much against the notion of restricted boards, but I can see one instance (limited) where it might be a nice accommodation.
I never go to the meds board, and I know there are lots of people there who never venture off the meds board. A few years ago I used to regularly correspond with a poster who spent most of her time on the meds board. She told me that she had a pretty close back and forth relationship with a couple of other woman on that Board, and that they'd go to some lengths to throw something about meds into every few posts so Bob wouldn't move them over to Social. I think they didn't feel as comfortable over there because Social gets alot of activity and I think can seem foreboding if you aren't ever there and aren't familiar with most of the posters.
What about having a board or boards without permanent memberships which can be used on a temporary basis, perhaps for people who want to carry on an exchange on a smaller board as to topics which cross-over the separate topics of the subject boards? (not neither fish nor fowl, but both fish and fowl). So lets say you have 15 spots on Board #1 - 5 people from the meds board could maybe apply to Bob to be able to post on that Board for a limited time, perhaps as to a wider range of topics than they can on any one board. He could assign another small group to that same board until the spots are full. The idea is not that everyone on those Boards is connected in some way, although I guess they could be, but rather that each group of posters could carry on their exchanges without worrying that they were going to be bounced to another more subject specific board, and without feeling overwelmed by the sheer number of threads. So if you had 4 different groups all assigned to the same small board, you might just have 4 threads on the whole board.
I think these boards will feel far less restrictive if 1) group participation on the small board is time limited; and 2) you don't look at a small board as being a cohesive whole but rather a place for a number of small group to gather (the front porch of the corner store?) to discuss a topic or cross-over topics. You might even want to restrict the size of each group. If 3 people wander over there for a brief time, I might not feel as excluded as if 12 people were over there all as one group. Topics of discussion should either be multiple-subject topics (the fish and the fowl), or topics which can't be discussed as easily on the subject board where that group tends to "hang out." I'd love, for instance, to be able to occasionally have some meds discussions with the people on the psyche board, but that theoretically isn't supposed to happen.
I guess this is not so much creating new boards for specific people as it is making board space available for a small group of people to congregate for a brief time. I also think the topics discussed on the small board by a smaller group shouldn't radically change while they're there. This would serve to encourage them to remain active on the subject boards as to topics which should be available to everyone for discussion.
Mair
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
In reply to Auntie Mel?, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 16:45:59
Dinah: You haven't done anything to bother me. If anything, you realize as much, if not more than most what it feels like to be the last picked in dodge ball.
Jai: Thank you so much. Your presence means a whole, whole lot to me, too. You have such a pure and kind heart - we should all want to be like you.
I haven't looked at social in a while. I'll take a peek today.
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:56:19
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
A hefty bag would do nicely.
The 2000 board was a wonderful idea. It had a *reason* to exist.
But groups based on 'first come, first serve' or alphabetical or any other random thing? What's the point?
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 26, 2005, at 10:22:03
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
> > I clearly don't understand your deepfelt desire for what you consider small town boards. But I want to understand.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I just think some posters would like the feel of smaller boards?
>
> Bob
>
> > Change can be a scary and intimidating thing for a lot of people. I think it is only human nature to resist change and try to maintain the status quo (which can be a very comfortable and safe state). However, if a change is presented in the right way, it is often times embraced and applauded rather than resisted. I guess it's all in the packaging sometimes.
> >
> > jujube
>
> Thanks for your response. Some people do seem concerned that a change like this would be for the worse. Do you have any advice on how to package it more attractively? :-)
>
> Bob
------------------------------------------------I think you like the idea of the small town boards simply because it gives you a new environment in which to study the posters. Why else would you be pushing it so hard??
It's a big effort, it will require more of your time....so, what's in it for Dr. Bob? ;-) Ahh...you've already shown an interest in the study of VLG's. The small town concept is sn an academic field of study, which you seem to want their help in marketing at Babble. At least you've fessed up to the marketing part....
I'm not saying you are going to publish anything (are you?), but at least would say that you want to study what will happen here if the small groups were instituted? Honestly goes a LONG way in getting what you want.
emmy the cynic
Posted by Dinah on January 26, 2005, at 12:27:21
In reply to Re: Dinah Jai, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
Whew. I couldn't think of anything offhand, but you never know.
My post to you in Social is probably a few archives old. You see, I've been missing you for a while.
I know all about not feeling well, and even about withdrawing when I don't feel well. It's probably in the best interests of the board in my case when I do withdraw when I don't feel well. lol. But sometimes I withdraw too much, and it really helps to reach out a bit.
My babblemail is on if you need a hand to reach out to.
Dinah
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.