![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 14:08:23
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:19:28
>
> > Regarding the restricted chat room, do you think that all Babblers should be able to view and/or participate in administrative meetings?
>
> I guess I thought the admin board was for dealing with admin issues / concerns etc.I think that's generally true.
But I can't imagine it would be an effective process or all that meaningful to the community if I (or another deputy) were to post here that I encountered an error or some other kind of glitch in the adminstration system while I was trying to complete a deputy task. Or to say, "Heads up. I noticed X, but I won't have time to do Y until Z. Anyone else available?" Or to say, "In the next X weeks, days, months, etc., I'm planning on or have to do Y IRL, so I will not be as available or will be gone until Z." Or, "Gee, Dr. Bob. I wish we had an easier way to do X."
I'm a very curious person by nature, and I prefer being "in the loop" versus "out of the loop" in organizations and groups. So I can relate to feeling outside and how that can feel yucky in a number of different ways.
But I don't know of any large organization or group that is perfectly flat in organizational structure. I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
Levels of structure in groups/organizations do foster inclusion and exclusion. I guess I've always experienced this as an artifact of group process and a "necessary evil" of sorts so that groups can function efficiently and effectively.
>
> People do tend to check the posts regularly - don't they?Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. ??
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 14:46:32
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:13:10
I think I've explained my position enough times for me, Alex.
Not going to do it again.
Period.
I'm sorry if you don't agree/understand, but I don't see how repeating myself will help.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 16:32:45
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:13:10
> > The prefect's carriage (and prefects bathroom) were sort of privileges granted to prefects in Harry Potter.
>
> Like how restricted chat is a sort of priviledge granted to deputies?It's a tool, alex. It's not the only one. It's no different from email, listservs, IM's, phone calls, conference calls, etc. It's just a different medium. If you'd like to use "privilege" versus "tools", that's up to you. Either way, it's still about deputies having what they need to best fulfill the obligations we volunteered to take on. Is a firefighter "privileged" to have access to water? If she also has access to infrared imaging to aid in locating victims inside a burning building, is she a "privileged" firefighter? Or is she outfitted well by the department so she can best do her job? (In no way am I equating the importance of firefighters with being a deputy...just a metaphor).
> > Harry felt left out when Ron and Hermione went to sit in the prefect's carriage
>
> Like how people might feel left out when the deputies go to restricted chat?Feeling left out sucks. I don't know what else to say about this that wouldn't be some sort of platitude or would seem otherwise invalidating.
>
> > At any rate, a deputy chat room, the equivilant of a prefect carriage, is not what this is.
>
> It isn't? So non-prefects (deputies) can go there too can they?I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. Not having read or watched any Harry Potter (gasp!), I have no idea whether it is or isn't equivalent to a prefect's carriage. I do know that it's a space on the internet where members of a group can go to communicate with each other in real(ish) time. One of a gazillion (exaggeration for effect-- I'm not about to start counting). It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. And as a mostly "empty space", I suppose it's ambiguous enough for multiple interpretations and assumptions.
So is the issue that the members of a group communicate with each other privately? That's not okay? Or that a "place" exists where not everyone can go? Something else?
> > As gg says, it's more of a conference room.
>
> Oh. So if we call it 'conference room' instead of 'gated community' instead of 'private chat' instead of 'exclusive chat' instead of 'small group' instead of 'prefects carriage' then that makes it completely different?What do you think, alex? Are you saying there's no difference at all between those different terms? Is there anything inherently wrong with the existence of any of those?
You and I have had private chats. Via email. Via private messages. Via telephone. Was there something wrong with that? Were we being exclusive? Private? Did it indicate something about anyone else that you and I chose to speak privately?
> I was pissed...
I hear that you were/are pissed, even if I don't understand it.
> Kind of like following the link to restricted chat and finding BAM! One can't enter? How much of a 'less than joyful welcoming' is that?
Ouch. That would be aggravating. It doesn't say anything about being restricted until you try to enter?
>
> > Prior experience already would seem to suggest that there should only be one room.
>
> One room, or two?sigh, why does it always take me so danged long to compose replies to you?
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 14:08:23
>But I can't imagine it would be an effective process or all that meaningful to the community if I (or another deputy) were to post here that I encountered an error or some other kind of glitch in the adminstration system while I was trying to complete a deputy task. Or to say, "Heads up. I noticed X, but I won't have time to do Y until Z. Anyone else available?" Or to say, "In the next X weeks, days, months, etc., I'm planning on or have to do Y IRL, so I will not be as available or will be gone until Z." Or, "Gee, Dr. Bob. I wish we had an easier way to do X."
I don't see how it would be ineffective. Deputies could be told that they should be sure to check the admin board regularly. I don't care whether it is meaningful to the community or not.
> I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
> Levels of structure in groups/organizations do foster inclusion and exclusion. I guess I've always experienced this as an artifact of group process and a "necessary evil" of sorts so that groups can function efficiently and effectively.
"Necessary evil".
If you see something as a "necessary evil" then... Well, it is pointless doing anything about it, of course. We could accept cancer and aids as necessary evils too, of course. Or we could strive to eliminate / reduce the amount of evil in the world.Would you like to remind me of your stance on small boards?
Posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 20:07:26
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
> >
> > I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
>
> As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
>
> >On the other hand, let's not be careful to avoid all actions that have any negative consequence, because we'd be paralyzed. Also, it occurs to me that doing something, however non-ideal, can lead to doing something else, better, later. Disagreements about what to do, and debates about the various downsides of every possible plan, after a certain point (which we may have reached), again-- leads to not doing anything.
Try doing something in NYC-- very little happens here, because of the clever use of strategies of debate, and appeal-- except mostly disintegration of the infrastructure (until some crisis or near-crisis necessitates the closing, slowing or otherwise diminution of whatever basic service is involved), and the building of tall, rather low-quality, tax-abatement- supported luxury housing. You'll see then, Alex.... (not really--sorry to get off on the wearing effect of living in NYC)-- but there is a point where you just have to do whatever reasonable, but less than perfect, thing.
>
>
>
>If you feel left out, or otherwise that something about it deeply bothers you, maybe we could discuss your feelings--eg, on the psychology board. Discussing feelings doesn't mean there isn't a valid point of principal-- but it can help you address the point of principal more effectively.
Isn't it just possible that the issue is in some respect how you feel about this, as well as the thing itself? Because feeling left out-- is a universal experience (I hope, unless I"m weirder than I thought)-- and it's bad, but you know-- sometimes it can lead to another experience. Prefects' carriage or not (yeah, I didn't see Harry Potter either-- that must be some sort of record-- at least two people who didn't see Harry Potter posting within several days of one another on a message board.).
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 20:19:13
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 20:07:26
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.> > As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
> On the other hand, let's not be careful to avoid all actions that have any negative consequence, because we'd be paralyzed.
Sure. I'm fairly sure there is a middle ground.
> If you feel left out, or otherwise that something about it deeply bothers you, maybe we could discuss your feelings--eg, on the psychology board...
Funny how that didn't seem to be the line when the discussion was about small boards / gated communities...
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:23:32
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » Jost, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 20:19:13
Small boars/gated communities are *communities*. Smaller. Different. But communities, at least as they seem to have been envisioned.
A work group/team/department/committee/insert other synonyms here gathering to do their work and to communicate in realtime is NOT the same thing. It's not a smaller version of the community. It's a task group.
There is no conflict in holding individual views on each. They have different structures, different functions, different uses, different contexts.
There's nothing wrong with anyone having the same reaction to both, but that does not mean they are the same thing. Let's be clear about what the two constructs are and are not.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
> I don't see how it would be ineffective. Deputies could be told that they should be sure to check the admin board regularly. I don't care whether it is meaningful to the community or not.
Deputies do check the admin board. How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient? If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them? Why would that be desirable or necessary? What benefit could there be in posting questions or comments that are not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards in contrast to the extra time it might take to try to explain to someone else just what I was talking about when the other person has never seen it and does not use the feature?
There's something about this I'm missing here. I can't conceive of why anyone would WANT to read that stuff or what benefit there would be to opening it up to everyone when it doesn't apply.
> As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.Allright, plain speaking. In my experience working in a variety of organizations as an employee, volunteer, associate, student, beneficiary, etc., I have never encountered any large organization that functioned without at least two layers of structure. Call me unimaginative. I'll call it pragmatic and realistic.
> We could accept cancer and aids as necessary evils too, of course.You're comparing feeling excluded because of a chat room set up so that deputies and Dr. Bob can communicate in real time every other week or so to cancer and AIDS?
>
> Would you like to remind me of your stance on small boards?You've forgotten?
gg
Posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
I missed any discussion of small boards.
But, Alex, you've got to admit that gated communities-- by which I assume you mean, a closed communities established for the purpose of excluding so-called "undesireable" others, ie putting up a "gate" that symbolically to imposes seclusion but accomplishes nothing else--
are different from groups that come together to accomplish a (legitimate) purpose, such as organizing a message board, or the publication of a magazine (editorial boards) or giving direction to a university or other non-profit institution (the trustees).
I'm willing to bet that it's a whole lot more tedious than otherwise to be in most of the deputy meetings. It's kind of like grading papers, or giving grades in general. As a student, I always thought that must be incredibly exciting-- to wield that type of power-- etc etc. As a teacher, I found it unbearably wearisome to read exams, papers, to mull over the minutia of exactly what grades to assign, worry about the effects, or reactions of students whose grades weren't what they wanted, and so forth.
I have the feeling this is more like that, than not.
Jost
Posted by Racer on October 3, 2006, at 23:02:40
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
I just got back from a board meeting. It's our homeowner's association board of directors, we're dealing with a lot of [excrement] related to litigation and major repairs and construction defects and all the idiocy involved in dealing with architects, engineers, and contractors. And just guess how much fun it is?
Tonight's meeting was an executive session -- a meeting closed to the general population of homeowners who are generally welcome to come into our board meetings.
I'm sure there are people who would have a problem with that. But you know what? Those of us on the board have some background knowledge that helps keep these meetings halfway manageable -- we're not stopping the discussion about when to replace the balconies in order to ask what's going to happen to our tomato plants. We already know that that's been dealt with. We already know that that's three items down on the agenda. We already know that the meeting is going to go on until April if we stop to ask that sort of question. What we're certainly NOT doing is discussing other homeowners, nor having fun while excluding them.
I'm sorry Alex is so upset by this. Frankly, I don't understand why it's such a big deal, and I am rather annoyed that it's become a big deal, but I'm still sorry that it's caused pain to someone.
And I guess I'm with GG: I don't know why it takes me s olong to post something to this discussion...
Posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
In reply to Re: IPrivate chat » muffled, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:05:59
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
> There is no conflict in holding individual views on each. They have different structures, different functions, different uses, different contexts.
I'm trying to remember the reasons people gave for why they were so opposed to exclusive boards... Things like 'people will feel excluded if they can't post' and 'it will create division on the boards' and stuff like that. I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms. I particularly remember a conversation about how it wasn't a good idea to have exclusive boards because people would feel like they were being slapped if they tried to goto the board / post on the board and got a message that they couldn't. I'm wondering why the person who was concerned about that isn't concerned about that in this case?
I know they aren't the same thing. They seem to be similar in relevant respects and hence yes I am surprised that people go one way on one of those and the other way on the other. Surprised. Yeah.
> Deputies do check the admin board.
Right then. So there is a forum already for admin issues and once a post is posted I guess people read the post without it going AWOL or whatever too...
> How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient?
What a high opinion you have on the deputies and Dr Bob! Don't mistake a failure of imagination into an insight into necessity. I think that other Babblers have shown an interest in how things are done here, and I think that other Babblers have demonstrated technical competence at times, too.
> If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them?
Nobody has an obligation to answer posts to the best of my knowledge. Especially not on the admin board as the purpose isn't support.
> Why would that be desirable or necessary?
It isn't necessary. It might be desirable...
> What benefit could there be in posting questions or comments that are not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards...
> There's something about this I'm missing here. I can't conceive of why anyone would WANT to read that stuff or what benefit there would be to opening it up to everyone when it doesn't apply.
Maybe some examples of deputy issues that are 'not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards' and deputy issues that 'doesn't apply' to Babblers would help.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:38:30
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
The issue around small boards...
Babble has become a big city. Lots of posters. There are benefits to big cities, but there can be costs too... Dr Bob thought it might be nice to have some small town boards too. Boards whose membership numbers were restricted so that people could get to know one another better and feel freer to post without being misunderstood. To promote a bonding experience.
It was unclear how they were going to work. Would they be invitation only? Would it be first come first served? How many people should there be? Should there be a new small board opened whenever there were enough people who were interested? Should the content be viewable by people who couldn't post to the board?
They were met with serious opposition.
I can remember some of the reasons people gave for *why* they were so objectionable:
- People will feel excluded
- It will be just like a 'gated community' / 'exclusive community' etc
- People will feel slapped if they try to enter / post but are prevented
- It will create division on the boardsI know that a private chat room for deputies is different from a private board. One is a room, the other is a board, I understand the difference.
What I don't understand, however, is why those reasons that people had *against* small boards don't apply to private chat?
Just trying to understand...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:43:20
In reply to :-) (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
hey muffled
((((((((((muffled))))))))))))
;-)
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 16:10:24
In reply to Re: Deputy issues that don't concern babblers » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
It seems like the main problem is that people will feel excluded, so why not include posters sometimes?
How about if Dr. Bob and the deputies chat with posters for a while before their meetings in reserved chat? Twice a month or something the deputies and Dr. Bob can have a meeting with posters in chat room 1 to talk about admin stuff. It will give posters an opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions in real time. After the chat with posters, the deputies and Dr. Bob can move to reserved to discuss deputy stuff. The admin-poster chat could take a specified amount of time, like 30 mins or something. Everyone will have an opportunity to talk to Dr. Bob this way.
Deneb*
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 16:39:28
In reply to Re: Deputy issues that don't concern babblers » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
> I'm trying to remember the reasons people gave for why they were so opposed to exclusive boards...I'm sure it's in the archives somewhere.
> I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms.
Which people?
> I particularly remember a conversation about how it wasn't a good idea to have exclusive boards because people would feel like they were being slapped if they tried to goto the board / post on the board and got a message that they couldn't. I'm wondering why the person who was concerned about that isn't concerned about that in this case?
Did you ask this person? Have you considered that circumstances might be different within and/or without the person which might lead him or her to a different reaction to a new concept? Is there something unacceptable about that?
>
> I know they aren't the same thing. They seem to be similar in relevant respects and hence yes I am surprised that people go one way on one of those and the other way on the other. Surprised. Yeah.It's dangerous to predict or assume how someone will view any specific situation.
>
> > Deputies do check the admin board.
>
> Right then. So there is a forum already for admin issues and once a post is posted I guess people read the post without it going AWOL or whatever too...Humminahh?
>
> > How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient?
>
> What a high opinion you have on the deputies and Dr Bob!:-|
> Don't mistake a failure of imagination into an insight into necessity.
You can say *that* again.
> I think that other Babblers have shown an interest in how things are done here, and I think that other Babblers have demonstrated technical competence at times, too.
Certainly.
>
> > If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them?
>
> Nobody has an obligation to answer posts to the best of my knowledge. Especially not on the admin board as the purpose isn't support.True. And there is also no obligation to post questions or concerns to the board. I suppose that each of us decides how best to get our needs met and direct our energies to that end.
>
> > Why would that be desirable or necessary?
>
> It isn't necessary. It might be desirable...Heck, even Donald Trump is reportedly desirable. Ya got me there. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, though.
>>
> Maybe some examples of deputy issues that are 'not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards' and deputy issues that 'doesn't apply' to Babblers would help.See earlier post.
alex, I seem to want to reassure you about this, and clearly I can't. I don't wish to keep going 'round about it, either. I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 17:49:46
In reply to We obviously don't agree » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 16:39:28
> > I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms.
> Which people?The people who thought that those reasons meant that there shouldn't be small boards. I think a fair few people agreed with those reasons. They thought that was precisely why there shouldn't be small boards.
I'm just having trouble seeing how those reasons don't apply to this instance.
It is about... Consistency.
Maybe there are other reasons for not wanting small boards? If so, then perhaps those other reasons don't apply to this case. Or perhaps there aren't other reasons for not wanting small boards in which case... I guess that consistency would require that small boards really aren't that objectionable after all.
This isn't so very much about opposition to restricted chat as it is about support for small boards. I'll admit I was a bit confused / upset about it to start with... I still think that the admin board is a good place to talk about admin. That is precisely what the admin board is for, I would have thought.
Another thing that bears on this issue is Dr Bob asking specifically what the deputies think. Kind of implies that if others say what they think they are butting in to the conversation and he doesn't care what other people think about the issue.
But maybe he will get better with that...
Another thing is his tendency to say 'it was the deputies idea' when it was not. Or 'the deputies decided' when they did not, they just went along with what he had decided already. Or 'we decided that' when he really meand 'I decided that'.
There have been problems with that already and I anticipate still more.
I guess the nature of the admin board is changing... We get to discuss things like what colour chat should be and how many lines we get in Babblemail and the real policy decisions won't really be on admin anymore.
> I suppose that each of us decides how best to get our needs met and direct our energies to that end.
I'm concerned about what is best for the group.
And I'm concerned that Dr Bob is thinking that a certain amount of inclusion / exclusion dynamics are inevitable. But he should be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity too. Sure, I understand that sometimes people just will feel what they feel. But my point is that if he considers those dynamics to be 'inevitable' then he won't really consider what he can do to minimise those dynamics. He won't really be concerned with minimising them. Why put energy or effort into what is inevitable? There would be little point.
> I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.
This is an admin issue gg. Or maybe... Only deputies get to deal with the real admin issues now and what non-deputies have to say is... Of little concern.
I'm sorry... I don't understand why anger.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 18:02:51
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 16:10:24
There are a limited number of people who can enter chat.
Currently... 15. At the moment there are...
4 deputies and Dr Bob. (I think 4 deputies).
So that means 10 other people can go along.
The time might be inconvenient for some people who want to go.
Half an hour for 15 people would give each person...
Around 2 minutes.
And with the time delay...I don't see what is wrong with the admin board.
Posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
In reply to Re: excluding others in order to bond... » Jost, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:38:30
Alex, the main answer to the question of why a reason against X may not be a reason against Y, even if there's overlap or similarity in some respects between X and Y, is that the differences between X and Y that nullify the reason.
For example, if I object to pickles and my reason is that pickles are very sour, you may wonder why I like sour cherry pie, because it also is very sour.
I will then reply that the sweetness of the pie makes the sourness seem very different from the sourness of the pickles. The fact that the pie is very sour can become one of its virtues.
Would you say, but you said before that sourness was bad- how can you now be changing so much as to make the statement that sourness is actually good?
If a board is constituted so that people can be together in a small group, that may facilitate greater initmacy.
One might argue that these small boads are unacceptable because it will make people feel excluded. In a given community (ie Pbabble at the time of the discussion), this may seem a dominating argument against small boards, ie, more powerful than the arguments for them (eg intimacy).
The question becomes, does this objection apply at all times, in all situations, to all small boards?
To me, the answer is clearly, no.
The factor of exclusion may be outweighed by some other, more powerful consideration-- even, in some groups, at some times, the value of intimacy. If the sentiment in the larger group were that the value of intimacy outweighed the disincentive of some feeling of exclusion at some times-- nothing would IMO make it inherently wrong to have small boards.
'
One group (Pbabble sub1) may have a different set of community standards, values (as a group) than another group (Pbabble sub2). Therefore they may make opposite choices, despite seemingly "identical" questions.Or the small boards may have different purposes, members, times of meeting, etc etc-- that could distinguish them from one another--
This for example is how laws accrete and evolve-- as situations develop, the understandings of rules, and the distinctions between seemingly similar situations (and therefore the qualification of general theoretical concepts and models created to analyze them) also ramify and become more nuanced.
I guess that's my first take on why you could come up against people who take a seemingly (but only seemingly) counterposed position from the one they took previously in a parallel-seeming (but not, to them, actually parallel) situation.
This is probably an incredibly round-about explanation, but do you know what I mean?
Jost
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 18:45:00
In reply to Re: A possible solution » Deneb, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 18:02:51
Yeah, you're right Alex. It's not too feasible. It's just that I like chatting with Bob and would do anything to have that opportunity.
How about this:
Whenever Dr. Bob is in the chat room, he can come over to rooms one and two just to say, "Hey" to people there, before going back to reserved chat.
I dunno. I'm getting desperate here.
When you talk about reserved chat and exclusion, I starting thinking and feeling like I'm excluded, and that feels unpleasant.
Wait a sec...I know!
When someone wants to chat with Bob and the deputies about an admin issue, how about they post their request to chat on the admin board and then Bob and the deputies can chat with this person whenever? Other people who are interested can join in....but then there is still the problem of exclusion since only 15 people can be in chat at one time.
Argh, I think the admin board is the best place because people won't be excluded from the conversation.
But I soooo want to chat with Bob, and yeah, I think I'm a little jealous of the deputies. They get to communicate with Dr. Bob more than the rest of us.
I'm feeling jealous and excluded. I think I'll post lots of Bob posts to make me feel better.
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
In reply to Re: A possible solution » alexandra_k, posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 18:45:00
> When you talk about reserved chat and exclusion, I starting thinking and feeling like I'm excluded, and that feels unpleasant.
I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
> I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
Then maybe its time to look for comprimise solutions.
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 22:13:38
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
> I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
>
> BobI'm not really against reserved chat, at least not when I think rationally about it. There's some emotional immaturity on my part.
I also tend to be influenced a fair bit by discussions of different views. I didn't really think much about exclusion until Alex brought it up.
Deneb*
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:24:52
In reply to Re: I think the point may be getting lost... » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 17:49:46
> I still think that the admin board is a good place to talk about admin. That is precisely what the admin board is for, I would have thought.
That's still precisely what the admin board is for. Nothing has changed that. There's nothing that was said in the first team meeting that otherwise would have been posted on the admin board if we hadn't had a chat space.
Is it the mere existence of a restricted space (of which there are too many to count on the internet and in real life)? Or is it that the admin. team have private communications at all? I still don't get the objection.
> Another thing that bears on this issue is Dr Bob asking specifically what the deputies think. Kind of implies that if others say what they think they are butting in to the conversation and he doesn't care what other people think about the issue.
That's an inference, not an implication. Others may infer something different or may see nothing more than that Dr. Bob consults deputies about stuff.
> Another thing is his tendency to say 'it was the deputies idea' when it was not. Or 'the deputies decided' when they did not, they just went along with what he had decided already. Or 'we decided that' when he really meand 'I decided that'.
I agree that's problematic. I don't see how that's connected to a restricted chat room.
> I guess the nature of the admin board is changing... We get to discuss things like what colour chat should be and how many lines we get in Babblemail and the real policy decisions won't really be on admin anymore.
Well, there's this thread. That doesn't seem to be the same as what color the board is. There's the one about a recent block. There's one about the implications and preferences regarding redirects.
> > I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.> This is an admin issue gg.
I would suggest that it might not be just an admin issue, alex.
> Or maybe... Only deputies get to deal with the real admin issues now and what non-deputies have to say is... Of little concern.Do you really believe that? And if so, just because the admin team communicated via a chat room instead of a list serv on one evening this week?
> I'm sorry... I don't understand why anger.
That's okay. It was my feeling to sort out.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:26:27
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
But I think I get what you mean. Thanks for posting that.
Watching a gubernatorial debate about the economy before coming online...not the best for the ol' noggin. :)
gg
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.