![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 12:52:13
In reply to You know what bothers me about this thread?, posted by Racer on September 13, 2006, at 10:56:01
It's not any worse than email asking you to resign.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 8:26:41
Friends,
There is written here about impeachment of a deputy.
This thread, innitiated by me, is about the administrative procedure {in view of the new rules} as to what the previous procedure was.
The previous procedure could be compromised now by the new rules pertaining to URLs and such.
Now here is a post by Dr. Hsiung that describes the previous procedure.
I ask:
A. could we use the same procedure?
B. If not , then what?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/475558.html
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 13:58:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:06:41
In reply to A (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 13:58:12
A
If the objection is to an action taken in the course of deputorial duties.
If the objection is to anything else, see
B
Follow the new procedures for objections to link URL's regarding the reason for your request, although I suppose general calls for impeachment can be made on the board, unless Dr. Bob rules otherwise.
Emailing Dr. Bob and the deputies has worked ok in the past hasn't it?, so you have the weight of past practice behind you, and should feel free that you won't be in any trouble for calling for deputorial resignations or impeachment by email. I don't see how any of the rules has changed in that regard.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:29:21
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 13:56:44
Friends,
It is written here,[...deputies doing a good job...]
Well, that is not usually the issue for impeachment, although the general poor job performance could be a reason to innitiate impeachment.
Many think that William Jefferson Clinton was doing a good job, but was there not an issue outside of his performance that innitiated the impeachment procedings? And Andrew Johnson and some that resigned thinking thst they could be impeached- Richard Nixon? And Spiro Agnew?
There are some generally accepted reasons that are used to impeach an official that are outside the fact that the official may be doing an overall good job. These reasons overide the official's ability to do his/her job.
we recently had an assistant supt. of schools here arrested for drunk driving. The school board impeached the assistant superintendent who had an excellant job performance. The school board's argument was that the employee's conduct, even outside the rhelm of emplotment was deterimental to the school. This is in the courts now and I think that the assistant supt. will prevail in this case.
But there was a teacher that called a student a name in class and was terminated (impeached). That teacher had an excellant job performance. The teacher lost on appeal.
You see, officials generally are held accountable in a different standard than non-officials because they generally are in a position of trust to others. The school board's argument against the assistant supt. is that the school does not endorse drunkeness and hold the employees to be exemplers.
A woman teacher here in a private religious school was recently terminated because the school held that only men can teach the bible to others.She had taught for many years and had a good performance record.
But in U.S. Supreme court vs Bob Jones University, the court did not accept their doctrine that those that belived in inter- racial marrige could be barred from being admitted to the college because their policy was racist and aginst the public's interest, even though it was a private school. This is an interesting opinion and was brought by the IRS to exclude the university from having a tax favore as a religious institution.
So there are issues of the public's interest as well as job performance?
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:29:21
Lou, you wouldn't be accusing deputies of being in violation of their morals clause, would you?
I might be forced to take umbrage if that's your meaning.
Or are you merely saying that impeachment can be called upon for any reason at all having nothing to do with job performance? I would have to agree with that, and take no umbrage at all.
I mean after all, the poor woman did nothing wrong by being born with two X chromosomes.
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:43:48
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Please overlook previous reference to taking umbrage. Should have checked my dictionary definition first. My apologies.
What I meant to say is that I will be very angry.
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:44:35
In reply to Whoops., posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:43:48
It does say perceived. Which I suppose would be ok.
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:59:49
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Dinah,
You wrote,[...the..woman did nothing wrong by being born with two X chromosomes...].
If you are referring to the woman that the religious school terminated because their policy is that only men can teach the bible to others?
You also wrote,[...you wouldn't be accusing deputies in violation of their moral clause, would you?..]
No.
I innitiated this thread because of the new rules in relation to URLs being posted. I have read your reply to me in the other post, and I think that you are saying that Dr. Hsiung's previous post about impeacmnet is still the same, with the exception of posting a URL of the deputies post?
Now that I have more infomation, now I can procede with Dr. Hsiung's policy about impeachment.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 15:13:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of this thread » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:40:12
Dinah,
Are you saying that impeachment can be called upon for {any} reason..having nothing to do with job performance?
There are generally accepted criteria for innitiating impeachment in different countries for public officials. There are definitions for school employees and others that are employed by states and municiplities.
But as to my meaning that impeachment could be innitiated for reasons other than job performance, the answer is yes.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 16:27:22
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on September 13, 2006, at 14:59:49
No, I mean that any objections to posts or posters should be emailed. But that if you have problems with official actions of a deputy in her deputorial capacity, then I think Dr. Bob exempts that from the rule.
So if you think a deputy should be impeached for something they did while using official language, and saying that they were acting as deputy for Dr. Bob, I think you can bring that up here.
If you have a problem with something a deputy did in their dual role as poster, the same rules apply as to all posters. Email it.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:38:01
In reply to Re: You know what bothers me about this thread?, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 12:52:13
I do empathize with you about that, Mel. I was never fond of those messages, either.
Still, I suppose we are all free to make those types of requests. (Dr. Bob is free to set consequences if necessary, but that's another issue). We can even call for "impeachment", resignation, or termination of someone just because we don't like the feelings they expressed or the rational reactions they have to our words.
We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil.
That doesn't mean that the request has merit.
I'm glad that in courts, organizations, boards, etc. whether the request has merit is usually assessed to some degree before undertaking any impeachment proceedings or similar action. I think that initial "screening" is a good thing. Otherwise, society would be impeaching right and impeaching left all day long, every day, and never get anything done.
Wouldn't that be cheerful? ;)
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 17:06:47
In reply to Anyone can call for impeachment » AuntieMel, posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 16:38:01
"We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil."
I'm not left handed.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 13, 2006, at 17:12:44
In reply to Re: Anyone can call for impeachment » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on September 13, 2006, at 17:06:47
> "We can request impeachment of someone just because they wear purple or are left-handed or love chocolate or do crossword puzzles in pencil."
>
> I'm not left handed.I'm not left handed either. ;)
And you're not that other stuff that I've read, either. Never thought you were. Never saw any evidence to suggest it, either.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 9:23:02
In reply to Clarification, posted by Dinah on September 13, 2006, at 14:06:41
> In my opinion, I feel like the deputies are doing a great job. They have a job that is difficult - difficult because there are so many subjective, hard calls to make, difficult because they are here for their own support as well and are trying to walk a very fine line between "authority" and "poster", and difficult because they often have many friends here themselves and it can be emotionally difficult to sanction people you care about (for me anyway). No, theyre not perfect, but I truly dont think anyone on this board (or elsewhere) could do this job with 100% perfection.
>
> wishingstar> There are rules in place at this site for the protection of posters here. Those rules include not posting things that might lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> I can't imagine anything that would lead a deputy to feel accused or put down more than a question about impeachment.
>
> RacerI also think the deputies are doing great in a difficult job. I know it can hurt to feel accused, and I'd like to protect them, too, but at the same time, I think it's important for this community as a whole to be able to discuss its administration openly. So I think I'd like to draw the line close to where Dinah did:
> > the previous procedure.
> >
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/475558.html
>
> If the objection is to an action taken in the course of deputorial duties.Please note that those should be civil objections to deputy actions taken, and neither uncivil objections nor objections to deputies themselves:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060802/msgs/674449.html
> If the objection is to anything else, see
>
> [ http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforce ]
>
> I suppose general calls for impeachment can be made on the board, unless Dr. Bob rules otherwise.
>
> you ... should feel free that you won't be in any trouble for calling for deputorial resignations or impeachment by email. I don't see how any of the rules has changed in that regard.
>
> DinahI'd like general calls for impeachment also to be emailed to me instead of posted.
And to limit each of the above to 3 per deputy per poster. 3 objections to actions taken (posted or emailed) + 3 other objections (emailed) = 6 total objections per deputy per poster.
How does that sound?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 10:02:52
In reply to Re: objections, posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 9:23:02
> I think it's important for this community as a whole to be able to discuss its administration openly.
but not important enough for you to allow open discussion. you seem to be moving things from off the admin board into private email. seems to be undermining the role of the admin board somewhat. but oh well archives are down etc etc...
Posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:38:55
In reply to Re: objections » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 10:02:52
> > I think it's important for this community as a whole to be able to discuss its administration openly.
>
> but not important enough for you to allow open discussion. you seem to be moving things from off the admin board into private email. seems to be undermining the role of the admin board somewhat.I dunno, Estella. I think I draw a line -- abitrary, but suitable to my needs in this situation ;-) -- between discussing general administration of this site -- "I think we should consider codifying a policy about this sort of behavior," "Can we vote on the maximum number of people allowed in Chat at one time?", "Would it be helpful to others if we could automatically quote babblemails in our responses to them," etc -- and making what are basically complaints against other posters.
And I include deputies as other posters.
So, how about we let the personal issues go to Dr Bob and the Deputies privately, and that way anything that isn't a problem stays private? Those things that ARE considered a problem, of course, will be made public, so there's no secrecy about the outcome in cases where there's a violation of the civility guidelines. The only part that would be kept quiet, is when a complaint is judged not to have merit.
Posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:56:43
In reply to Re: objections » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2006, at 10:02:52
If this were an office, a company with employees -- government offices included -- having unverified complaints against employees made public would create a hostile working environment, and would therefore not be allowed.
Say I worked in accounting, and I had a complaint against someone in sales. Say I had a complaint about that someone's behavior, but no complaint against the person, or that it is was a complaint about the person him/herself. If I stood around discussing that issue in the break room, I'd be disciplined, not the person from sales.
The proper procedure is for me to go to the accounting manager, who would consider the validity of my concern. Should the accounting manager find my concern valid, the next step would be to notify the sales manager, who would then also consider the validity of the complaint. If the two managers disagree, the complaint moves up the food chain. If the sales manager agrees that there's a valid issue raised, it's his/her responsibility to address that issue -- privately.
Despite the fact that I made the initial complaint, by the way, I have no special right to know the outcome. Frustrating for me? Sure. Unless the sales dept employee is fired or otherwise singled out publicly, I may never know that anything was done. (Although a good manager would let me know that it had been addressed and might let me know something about the outcome.)
But the bottom line is that if I make my complaint publicly, I will be the one punished, for creating a hostile work environment for the person in the sales department. In that case, it matters not one whit whether I had a valid concern or not.
Babble is not analogous to a government entity. It is much more analogous to a private company. I think the private emailing of concerns to Dr Bob and the Deputies is a proper way to address concerns and complaints -- including complaints against deputies, and calls for the removal of a deputy.
I also think that "Dr Bob and the Deputies" would make a good name for a rock band.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 14, 2006, at 14:57:06
In reply to Another way of looking at all this, posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:56:43
>and calls for the removal of a deputy.
Been there. Read that. Multiple times, in fact. Repeated exposure kinda diffuses the impact after awhile, though. You just start skimming over the stuff that is repeated.
I'm still waiting for my tee-shirt, though.
Still want to be a deputy?
>
> I also think that "Dr Bob and the Deputies" would make a good name for a rock band.lol
gg
Posted by finelinebob on September 15, 2006, at 2:00:22
In reply to Another way of looking at all this, posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:56:43
> I also think that "Dr Bob and the Deputies" would make a good name for a rock band.
Who, ahem, who would have to be a Mod band. =^D
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 8:25:52
In reply to Another way of looking at all this, posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:56:43
Yup, yup, yup, yup.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 10:41:54
In reply to Re: objections » alexandra_k, posted by Racer on September 14, 2006, at 13:38:55
I guess it depends (fairly significantly) on what the situation is.
When a poster is requesting frequent determination / judgements from administration as to the civility of posts and or requesting frequent impeachments / judgements from bob as to the appropriateness of deputies decisions then... well... the frequency / persistence of the requests... can be something that some people would prefer not to follow on the admin board.
but people have the decision whether to follow it or not (ie whether to read those posts or not). when the requests are made via email then people can't even decide to follow as the choice is completely out of their hands.
i used to think of admin as a process group. not for those kinds of issues, but i guess that more generally i used to think of admin as a process group.
but i guess times are changing...
does anyone know of an online process group?
i've seen reference to one that used to run. to the best of my knowledge that group doesn't run anymore, however. alternatively, i know of an online process group that runs but my understanding is that you need to be enrolled in a grad level paper at a certain institution in order to participate. hence the group members change when the enrollments for the course changes.is there an online process group with unrestricted membership?
(or more to the point membership i would qualify for)?
i'd be happy to know of anything.
thanks.
Posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 12:04:08
In reply to Re: objections, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 10:41:54
> when the requests are made via email then people can't even decide to follow as the choice is completely out of their hands.
This is true. There is a lack of transparency to administration when it is performed using the email format.> i used to think of admin as a process group.
What is a process group?
> not for those kinds of issues,
Which issues?
> but i guess that more generally i used to think of admin as a process group.
Was it more fun back in the old days?
> but i guess times are changing...Yes, they changed quite awhile ago. Expression of thoughts and feelings here have become quite constrictive in my exprerience. However, the restrictions of speech, or more positively, the construction of speech, has yielded a more civil (polite and organized) discourse than what had existed previous to the development of civility guidelines and enforcement regulations. I won't debate the advantages and disadvantages of this system, but it works to provide an environment where, in my opinion, the exchange of ideas related to the themes of the boards established has been productive, constructive, positive in spirit, and of benefit to the participants. To the extent to which these interactions have developed over time within an eveloving set of guidelines is a process of sorts. That the regulations are not determined by the majority of participants may not be. Despite this occasionally annoying lack of democracy, here we are, a functional community displaying a moderate and stable amount of activity. We did lose a few customers, unfortunately
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 20:07:37
In reply to Re: objections, posted by SLS on September 15, 2006, at 12:04:08
>There is a lack of transparency to administration when it is performed using the email format.
yeah. so admin moves from the admin board to descisions behind the scenes.
oh... unless we want to decide the number of people in chat, or the length of the text box on babblemail kinds of issues, of course.
> > i used to think of admin as a process group.> What is a process group?
i'm sorry i can't find the links... i remeber i had to hunt for a long time to find that much. my guess would be that you have to be a member of a proff organisation or paying to enter the sites etc. sorry.
> > not for those kinds of issues,
> Which issues?When a poster is requesting frequent determination / judgements from administration as to the civility of posts and or requesting frequent impeachments / judgements from bob as to the appropriateness of deputies decisions...
> Was it more fun back in the old days?
i wouldn't call it 'fun', no.
> Yes, they changed quite awhile ago.
I think that is a different kind of change from what I'm talking about. I guess you have been here for longer than me...
> a functional community displaying a moderate and stable amount of activity. We did lose a few customers, unfortunately
'a few'
I wonder how many 'a few' means really...
Posted by ju§tyourlaugh on September 18, 2006, at 22:42:29
In reply to Re: objections, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2006, at 20:07:37
[xxx], You are the first person to f*ck with me on the internet. You can go straight to hell. Do you know what I mean? I mean go right into the ugly part of your tiny brain and tear yourself into little shreads. You made a mistake and attacked somebody, and when she came here for support,we supported her here. The fact that some people used to know you means nothing. When I turned on my computer and saw you had called me out, adrenaline went through my whole body. Maybe you felt the same way when you came on the boards. Good. So, I say right here and now, If you are lurking around seeing the effect you had. Here is the effect. It bothered me. irl, I would swat you like a bug. Here's my email. [xxx]. Here is my address [xxx]. Here is my phone number [xxx]. Take a drive, take a flight. There are 2 Starbucks on my corner. I hate you as much as I've ever hated anyone in my life. I hate you right now more than I hate myself. Eat sh*t. I bet you remember what it tastes like. It's metallic, like blood but more smell. Smoke some pot, drink a drink, contact me. I think we could be good for each other. I hate you. I know that is all about me. for me it is all about you. Thank you for your fond consideration in this matter, [xxx]
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.