![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 59. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 11, 2005, at 5:46:50
In reply to Re: i'm sorry :-(, posted by alexandra_k on October 11, 2005, at 1:26:56
I don't think I could be involved in the same way if Dr. Bob wasn't. He's always been too much a part of Babble to me.
But as I know too well, things constantly change around me, and it's not up to me.
(I hadn't realized that the small board topic had been successfully resolved in a positive direction. Certainly not on my part. Perhaps you mistook my desire not to argue the point because I don't like to argue for a desire not to argue the point because I decided I agreed with you.)
Posted by Toph on October 11, 2005, at 7:06:32
In reply to Re: Have you been really busy??? » Toph, posted by Deneb on October 10, 2005, at 21:36:58
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2005, at 1:50:39
In reply to Have you been really busy???, posted by alexandra_k on October 8, 2005, at 8:54:27
now i'm back to the chronic regular variety ;-)
i really am sorry about that people.
past sh*t...
past sh*t...but i'm sorry if anyone felt a little distressed by what i said :-(
(((((((everyone)))))))))
I clarified my thoughts on the thread below.
and i really am sorry for speculating...
:-(
i get caught in these really opressive head circles sometimes and i'm sorry i dragged other people along with me in that...
i hope one day i learn to keep my damned mouth shut until i am in a better frame of mind.i don't think he would just up and leave.
there is the babble party next year - right?
he's gotta hang around for that :-)
i just hope he isn't trying to reduce his involvement too much is all...
because i would miss him.
but that being said...
if he did...i hope other people wouldn't reduce their involvement as well...
because then it means for the people who are left...
well. then the loss is so very much greater.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2005, at 2:02:46
In reply to Re: in case you haven't noticed..., posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2005, at 22:54:03
> at this point in time you seem to have precisely one active volounteer.
> and far from volounteers running things themselves 'more democratically' they are left having to try and read your mind to deliver determinations / make decisions on the basis of what you would do if you were here.and isn't she doing a wonderful job.
thanks for looking out for us
(((gg)))
and other people too... there are other people of course. and people better not bugger off... because people need you people too. and i'm always sad when people go. or when they reduce their involvement even :-(
but... we look out for each other too. right?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2005, at 2:09:06
In reply to Re: i'm sorry :-( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 11, 2005, at 5:46:50
> I don't think I could be involved in the same way if Dr. Bob wasn't. He's always been too much a part of Babble to me.
:-(
but...
for lots of people here...
me included...
you are round about as much a part of the boards as dr-bob is.and for some people...
even more.> (I hadn't realized that the small board topic had been successfully resolved in a positive direction. Certainly not on my part. Perhaps you mistook my desire not to argue the point because I don't like to argue for a desire not to argue the point because I decided I agreed with you.)
I'll just formally note that i have apologised to Dinah for the inaccuracy of that statement...
Oops.
I thought the issue about small boards was resolved...
But appreciated that there was still an issue about their googleability (is that a word lol) and visibility to non-members...but i should have been clearer
(and maybe thats still wrong??)
Posted by gardenergirl on October 12, 2005, at 2:19:27
In reply to Re: three cheers for gg!!!, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2005, at 2:02:46
Thanks for your support, alexandra.
And cheers to you, too.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2005, at 3:38:30
In reply to Re: Have you been really busy??? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on October 10, 2005, at 17:28:31
> I have to wonder if one of the reasons Dr. Bob added new deputies is specifically so he could reduce his involvement or time spent here.
>
> All Done> yeah. a while ago he started up about 'making the boards more democratic', about delegating out some of the tasks he does to keep the boards going. i wondered about then whether it was an attempt to extract himself.
>
> i thought it was a bit of a tall order to get a couple new deputies and then bug off for a fairly long while so soon after getting them and and then leaving them to it...
>
> and some stuff...
> like the small board stuff...
> once the idea was sort of sort of accepted
> the issue was dropped...
> he doesn't seem so very keen to actually implement them or anything like that.
>
> alexandra_kSorry about not having been around more. I have in fact been really busy. But I do also think it would be better if the boards weren't quite so dependent on me. I think there's something to be said for a more democratic system, plus I'm not going to be here forever...
I agree, the timing of the addition of the newest deputies was far from ideal. That's one reason I'd like to free up some time, so I can do other things here like get new deputies on board, implement smaller boards, etc.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on October 12, 2005, at 7:34:54
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2005, at 3:38:30
Posted by thuso on October 12, 2005, at 11:33:04
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2005, at 3:38:30
> But I do also think it would be better if the boards weren't quite so dependent on me. I think there's something to be said for a more democratic system, plus I'm not going to be here forever...
>I think this is a good idea actually. We should start becoming more independent, but it should be done slowly. I'm sure it is going to be pretty hard on a lot of people who have been here for a long time.
Now when you talk about a more democratic system, do you mean where we as a group would ultimately decide the rules? Whoever the leaders are, they would take the general consensus of the group and between them create/enforce/make changes to the rules? I also hope that as this moves to a more democratic state that there will always be a specified "leader" running everything (even if it isn't you). Otherwise, I think it will end badly.
I'd be very interested to hear what your long term plan is for here in terms of eventually removing yourself completely.
Posted by JenStar on October 12, 2005, at 13:45:26
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2005, at 3:38:30
Dr. Bob,
if you're not going to be here forever, does that mean you're planning on transferring ownership of Babble to another person? Do you have any backups in mind? By telling us this, are you sort of trying to prepare us for your departure & get us ready for the idea?Just Curious!
JenStar
Posted by Gabbix2 on October 12, 2005, at 17:31:14
In reply to Et tu? (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 12, 2005, at 7:34:54
I swear if you have to lose something that is not related to Katrina.. I'm going to spit nails.
(very carefully directed pointy nails)
Posted by crazy teresa on October 12, 2005, at 19:05:47
In reply to Re: momentary bout of insanity over..., posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2005, at 1:50:39
> there is the babble party next year - right?
>
> he's gotta hang around for that :-)
>We're having it the same time he'll be at a convention in Toronto, so if he doesn't show up, we'll track him down! ;~}
Glad you're feeling better!
Posted by Dinah on October 12, 2005, at 20:22:25
In reply to Re: Et tu? » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on October 12, 2005, at 17:31:14
Thanks Gabbi. :)
I just might join you.
Danged if I know why losing Dr. Bob would be such a big deal to me...
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2005, at 1:37:28
In reply to Re: Et tu? » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on October 12, 2005, at 20:22:25
> it should be done slowly.
Definitely! I should've emphasized that before.
> Now when you talk about a more democratic system, do you mean where we as a group would ultimately decide the rules? Whoever the leaders are, they would take the general consensus of the group and between them create/enforce/make changes to the rules? I also hope that as this moves to a more democratic state that there will always be a specified "leader" running everything (even if it isn't you). Otherwise, I think it will end badly.
Right, deciding and enforcing the rules. I think a specified leader is important, too. Badly in what way?
> I'd be very interested to hear what your long term plan is for here in terms of eventually removing yourself completely.
>
> thusoI don't have one yet. I'm doing this slowly! :-)
> By telling us this, are you sort of trying to prepare us for your departure & get us ready for the idea?
>
> JenStarI guess part of it is preparation, but I'd also like input and help...
> Danged if I know why losing Dr. Bob would be such a big deal to me...
>
> DinahWell, I'm not planning on being lost anytime soon. For better or worse...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2005, at 3:53:54
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 12, 2005, at 3:38:30
> I have in fact been really busy.
thanks for letting us know.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2005, at 4:43:59
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2005, at 1:37:28
I've been happy to help out any way I can for a while now. But... I am all over the place with my moods and sometimes I think I harm the boards more than I help them :-( I'm not very consistent in my ability to help out and I'm wary of taking on more than I can handle.
There is the point that something could happen to you (god forbid). And that other obligations may prevent your posting for a time. So I think it is a good idea to share the admin duties around so that the boards may still be able to continue in your absence.
But I always thought of helping as something that freed you up more. So that Babble wouldn't feel like a chore and so that you would enjoy the boards more, and enjoy Babbling with us.
It is one thing to be prepared to help with respect to those things... And another to be prepared to help you extract yourself from the boards, gradually or otherwise. I don't want you to go away :-(
Please stay and Babble with us.
Even if the boards do become democratic
Please stay and Babble with us.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2005, at 5:41:16
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2005, at 4:43:59
i've been a bit confused about what you meant by 'democratic' when you mentioned it in the past.
because... when posters do exhibit a clear preference for a change in the rules (with respect to the length of blocks on the blocking system, for example) then you seem quite happy to ignore them and continue on your merry way.
but then... you also talk about how we aren't at the stage of the boards being more democratic yet...
but i still get the sense that there is a lot of talking about it...
but you don't really want us to decide that stuff.
you do seem happy to continue on your merry way...hmm...
paternalism vs automomy perhaps...
(though after taking a tut for someone on that a while ago i'm seeing that everywhere)
how much do us posters really know about how to best moderate the boards?
how much do us posters really know about what is best for the boards, or indeed for us?but then again... how do you?
and what is the worth of your clinical judgement... and what is the worth of clinical judgement anyways when it comes to having a person to play leader???
and how much do they need a vision...
of what they are doing
and of what their role in that process is...and how much is your vision unique?
and how much would others adopt your vision?
impose their own?
and wouldn't a group of moderators with nobody in charge... be a little too eclectic?
with no overall vision... it is too easy to lose sight of a goal.i gotta stop using drugs :-(
still..
Posted by thuso on October 13, 2005, at 10:09:55
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2005, at 1:37:28
> Right, deciding and enforcing the rules. I think a specified leader is important, too. Badly in what way?
There are a few possible scenarios that I can think of (assuming no specific leader):
(1) Of the group of deputies, one will probably stand out and take the lead (guessing the person with the strongest personality). That in itself isn't necessarily bad, but if there is no control of what person takes that role then you can have problems. It's too easy to try and implement a personal agenda and push for something that would end up contrary to the best interests of the group.
For example, I am writing this in a training course right now and we are discussing how to make a decision as a group. In this exercise we had to determine as a large class where we wanted to go on vacation. We had 5 choices and used a paired-choice matrix to make the decision. Technically, we should have used a democratic process to decide. Didn't happen. I dominated by expressing my choices louder and more aggressively then everyone else. In the end 90% of the matrix was filled in with my choices even if some people wanted the opposite choice. I wanted to go to the Mediterranean and I made sure it was known and chosen. Completely my agenda and I got what I wanted. That's what I worry would happen if no "leader" was chosen to administer the democratic process.
(2) If it becomes democratic with no "official" leader, then I can see it turn into a government-like structure where every decision takes forever to decide and implement. Without a leader there will have to be a very structured way of doing things. I don't think that will really be possible.
If you think about it, the US government was set up specifically so that no one group has all the power. That's where our balance of power comes in. Our founding fathers knew what could happen if a democratic government was set up with only one group making all the decisions. And even within our own balance of power structure, if you ask a lot of people (dem or rep), they will say that the Supreme Court has taken more power than was given too them and the judges use their own political viewpoints as a determining factor when analyzing constitutionality.
(3) I'm also worried about the deputies ending up being too rigid with the rules and policies. I always think about neighborhood associations with this issue. Too many associations lose all the elasticity in their enforcement of rules, and that is the last thing I want to happen here. If people think you're too rigid now, the potential is even greater when you're talking multiple people. Even though I'm a very black & white person, I think there needs to be a little understanding of certain circumstances. One of the things I like about here are the rules and the fact that every rule applies to every person. I just worry about bad judgments being used and no direct leader (i.e. your role now) there to reverse the decision. If one of the deputies makes a mistake and is too harsh on someone, I don't really see a reversal happening. That would undermine the authority of the original deputy. I'm sure the kind of leader you have in your head of taking over won't have the same level of authority you have on these boards right now, so the deputies won't have to say that the ultimate decision is yours (i.e. the leader's). Even though deputies right now have authority to help you "police" the board, there is still the feeling and understanding that they're not overly powerful and that you overpower them. It is very comforting to me that that they are under someone's direct authority. I have much more respect for their decisions and actions because of this.
Now when I talk a specific person as the "leader", I don't necessarily mean someone who has veto power and/or has the ability to make any decision they want (i.e. your role right now). The ideal would be to have a group administering the board with a leader taking on more of a managerial role to make sure things run smoothly for the group. They would obviously need some power to make sure the group stays focused and on track and doesn't deviate from the agreed upon policies.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I personally have yet to find a forum online that is run under a group structure and flourishes or even survives. Every successful online community (or even in real life) has a leader. It's too easy for things to go sour when people from a community run things by themselves.
> I guess part of it is preparation, but I'd also like input and help...
I'm always full of ideas. :-p I just think this post is loooooooong enough as it is. Sorry about that! ;-)
Posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:51:35
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 13, 2005, at 4:43:59
> It is one thing to be prepared to help with respect to those things... And another to be prepared to help you extract yourself from the boards, gradually or otherwise. I don't want you to go away :-(
Exactly my thought.
Posted by ClearSkies on October 13, 2005, at 19:54:41
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:51:35
Anyone else kind of blindsided by this whole thing? I am having a tough time with this.
Posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:54:45
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2005, at 1:37:28
>
> Well, I'm not planning on being lost anytime soon. For better or worse...
>
> BobI dunno. I always told my therapist that when he announced an intention to abandon me, even if it didn't go into effect immediately, that that announcement *was* the abandonment, and all else that followed was merely followthrough.
Posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:59:36
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » Dinah, posted by ClearSkies on October 13, 2005, at 19:54:41
Yeah.
The thing about Babble is that posters have always come and gone. I can count on my hands the posters that have stayed consistently, and some of those fingers would be taken up by people who have largely left the boards but keep in touch with me by email or IM.
But Dr. Bob was a constant. He was *the* constant that made the inevitable loss of friends on the board bearable. Because no matter how much everything changed on Babble, and it does - frequently, Babble was always Babble because Dr. Bob was always here, always had been here, and would be here as long as Babble was around.
Dr. Bob provided the stable base to an evershifting Babble.
What's a structure without a foundation?
D*mn it.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 14, 2005, at 2:09:44
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » ClearSkies, posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:59:36
> > > I also hope that as this moves to a more democratic state that there will always be a specified "leader" running everything... Otherwise, I think it will end badly.
> >
> > Badly in what way?
>
> (1) Of the group of deputies, one will probably stand out and take the lead... if there is no control of what person takes that role then you can have problems. It's too easy to try and implement a personal agenda and push for something that would end up contrary to the best interests of the group.
>
> (2) If it becomes democratic with no "official" leader, then I can see it turn into a government-like structure where every decision takes forever to decide and implement.
>
> (3) I'm also worried about the deputies ending up being too rigid with the rules and policies... about bad judgments being used and no direct leader ... there to reverse the decision.I do think it would be problematic if there wasn't someone in charge. And one of the jobs of the person in charge would be to keep the above from happening. And not to implement a personal agenda or be too rigid themselves.
> Now when I talk a specific person as the "leader", I don't necessarily mean someone who has veto power and/or has the ability to make any decision they want (i.e. your role right now). The ideal would be to have a group administering the board with a leader taking on more of a managerial role to make sure things run smoothly for the group.
Like a CEO reports to a board of directors?
> Every successful online community (or even in real life) has a leader. It's too easy for things to go sour when people from a community run things by themselves.
>
> thusoBut electing someone from the community wouldn't count as "by themselves", right?
I've started thinking of large groups as political systems. Here's an overview I found recently:
> Political Systems
>
> ISSUES OF CLASSIFICATION
>
> Confronted by the vast array of political forms, political scientists have attempted to classify and categorize, to develop typologies and models, or in some other way to bring analytic order to the bewildering variety of data. Many different schemes have been developed. There is, for example, the classical distinction between governments in terms of the number of rulers--government by one man (monarchy or tyranny), government by the few (aristocracy or oligarchy), and government by the many (democracy)... There are classifications that group systems according to basic principles of political authority or the forms of legitimacy (charismatic, traditional, rational-legal, and others)...
>
> The most influential of such classifying schemes is undoubtedly the attempt of Plato and Aristotle to define the basic forms of government in terms of the number of power holders and their use or abuse of power. Plato held that there was a natural succession of the forms of government: an aristocracy (the ideal form of government by the few) that abuses its power develops into a timocracy (in which the rule of the best men, who value wisdom as the highest political good, is succeeded by the rule of men who are primarily concerned with honour and martial virtue), which through greed develops into an oligarchy (the perverted form of government by the few), which in turn is succeeded by a democracy (rule by the many); through excess, the democracy becomes an anarchy (a lawless government), to which a tyrant is inevitably the successor... Although disputing the character of this implacable succession of the forms of government, Aristotle also based his classification on the number of rulers and distinguished between good and bad forms of government. In his typology it was the rulers' concern for the common good that distinguished the ideal from perverted forms of government. The ideal forms in the Aristotelian scheme are monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a term conveying some of the meaning of the modern concept of "constitutional democracy"); when perverted by the selfish abuse of power, they are transformed respectively into tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy (or the mob rule of lawless democracy)...
>
> Another very influential classifying scheme was the distinction between monarchies and republics. In the writings of Machiavelli and others, the tripartism of classical typologies was replaced by the dichotomy of princely and republican rule. Sovereignty in the monarchy or the principality is in the hands of a single ruler; in republics, sovereignty is vested in a plurality or collectivity of power holders. Reducing aristocracy and democracy to the single category of republican rule, Machiavelli also laid the basis in his analysis of the exercise of princely power for a further distinction between despotic and nondespotic forms of government...
>
> Modern classifying systems.
>
> The usefulness of all the traditional classifications has been undermined by the momentous changes in the political organization of the modern world... Another classification, which distinguishes between "legitimate" and "revolutionary" governments, was suggested by Mosca's contemporary Guglielmo Ferrero. Using a sociopsychological approach to the relations between rulers and ruled, Ferrero held that a legitimate government is one whose citizens voluntarily accept its rule and freely give it their loyalty; in revolutionary systems, the government fears the people and is feared by them. Legitimacy and leadership are also the basis of a typology developed by the German sociologist Max Weber. In Weber's scheme there are three basic types of rule: charismatic, in which the authority or legitimacy of the ruler rests upon some genuine sense of calling and in which the followers submit because of their faith or conviction in the ruler's exemplary character; traditional, in which, as in hereditary monarchy, leadership authority is historically or traditionally accepted; and rational-legal, in which leadership authority is the outgrowth of a legal order that has been effectively rationalized and where there is a prevailing belief in the legality of normative rules or commands...
>
> A serviceable classification of political systems must penetrate beneath formal appearances to underlying realities; these realities, however, do not consist only of the facts of social and economic organization. Important differences often exist between political systems having very similar socioeconomic structures. That is why some recent sociological classifications and schemes of analysis fail as tools of political inquiry: they cannot effectively distinguish between certain societies whose political orders are full of contrasts. The political system itself must be the primary focus of inquiry and the phenomena of politics the principal facts of investigation. Such an approach may involve many different kinds of analysis, but it must begin with an examination of the ways in which power is acquired and transferred, exercised, and controlled...
>
> Copyright (c) 1996 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reservedhttp://www.search.eb.com/elections/macro/5005/17/2.html
So I guess we'd be trying to move from a monarchy to a republic? Or from traditional to rational-legal?
----
> I always told my therapist that when he announced an intention to abandon me, even if it didn't go into effect immediately, that that announcement *was* the abandonment, and all else that followed was merely followthrough.
I'm sorry you feel abandoned. But did it need to be announced that I'm not going to be here forever? Better, I think, to try to plan some sort of succession...
> The thing about Babble is that posters have always come and gone.
>
> But Dr. Bob was a constant. He was *the* constant that made the inevitable loss of friends on the board bearable. Because no matter how much everything changed on Babble, and it does - frequently, Babble was always Babble because Dr. Bob was always here, always had been here, and would be here as long as Babble was around.
>
> DinahDoes Babble need to be so dependent on me? Might there not come a time -- sometime, I'm not saying right away! -- when the "culture" might be established enough to persist, more or less, without me?
Bob
Posted by thuso on October 14, 2005, at 13:53:12
In reply to Re: Looooong Post, posted by Dr. Bob on October 14, 2005, at 2:09:44
Posted by MidnightBlue on October 14, 2005, at 16:02:38
In reply to Re: delegating out some of the tasks » ClearSkies, posted by Dinah on October 13, 2005, at 19:59:36
To this I must say, "Amen."> Yeah.
>
> The thing about Babble is that posters have always come and gone. I can count on my hands the posters that have stayed consistently, and some of those fingers would be taken up by people who have largely left the boards but keep in touch with me by email or IM.
>
> But Dr. Bob was a constant. He was *the* constant that made the inevitable loss of friends on the board bearable. Because no matter how much everything changed on Babble, and it does - frequently, Babble was always Babble because Dr. Bob was always here, always had been here, and would be here as long as Babble was around.
>
> Dr. Bob provided the stable base to an evershifting Babble.
>
> What's a structure without a foundation?
>
> D*mn it.
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.