![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 49. Go back in thread:
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]
Posted by gardenergirl on September 20, 2006, at 3:18:16
In reply to Blocked » ju§tyourlaugh, posted by gardenergirl on September 18, 2006, at 22:51:23
> You are the first person to f*ck with me on the internet.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or disclose without permission information that identifies another poster, even if you're quoting someone else. You've been asked to be civil, so now I am blocking you from posting. I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please see the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions. Thus, you can always appeal this decision to him, and he may choose a different action.
Regards,
deputy gg
Posted by Declan on September 20, 2006, at 3:18:18
In reply to Blocked » ju§tyourlaugh, posted by gardenergirl on September 18, 2006, at 23:53:52
I wanna read that deleted post. You have to be quick around here. Posts that lead to blocks aren't always deleted. But sometimes they are.
How does this work?
Posted by Dinah on September 20, 2006, at 3:18:18
In reply to Re: Blocked » gardenergirl, posted by Declan on September 19, 2006, at 4:26:00
There's a technical glitch right now that we're trying to get Dr. Bob to fix.
If he can, he'll restore it in a way consistent with Babble guidelines.
Posted by ClearSkies on September 20, 2006, at 3:18:18
In reply to Blocked » ju§tyourlaugh, posted by gardenergirl on September 18, 2006, at 23:53:52
Justyourlaugh,
I wish there was a way without getting ourselves blocked to feel safe.
I'm sorry that this is still so raw for you.
I hope that you feel better.ClearSkies
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 20, 2006, at 3:18:19
In reply to Blocked » ju§tyourlaugh, posted by gardenergirl on September 18, 2006, at 23:53:52
> I've asked Dr. Bob to determine the duration of the block.
previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 51 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: yes
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 51 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 5 weeks. If we apply that to her previous block, that takes her back to 0. And if we go from there, that's 1 week.
Bob
Posted by laima on September 20, 2006, at 21:57:44
In reply to Re: the duration, posted by Dr. Bob on September 20, 2006, at 3:09:14
I don't get it- U of Chicago, psychobabble, Dr. Bob- all privately funded, private organizations and individuals-volunteer- and we are guests-
Babble not a "public service" that any of us are entitled to- even though it may be valuable public outreach. Hyde Park, the University- known for diversity and tolerance. Funding for programs primarily comes from tuition and from the Development Office *shamelessly* going after alums for donations...I *think* anyone involved with the website has the *right*- if they deemed it appropriate- to shut it all down altogether...they can do as they see fit, really.
Posted by Lindenblüte on September 22, 2006, at 17:26:09
In reply to ?, posted by laima on September 20, 2006, at 21:57:44
actually, even private universities get a lot of their monies through government research grants, and federal financial aid to their students, publicly funded fellowships for their graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and other researchers.
if you can find a large private university where one guy (Dr. Bob, the Wizard of Oz, Bob Jones, etc) has say [and ultimate responsibility] over any and all decisions of membership and publication, well... I guess it's an adequate comparison. But I'm just not sure that it's relevant.
Civility = what Dr. Bob says. It's subjective, and he's the subject that has the final say to deem a post uncivil. Sure, it depends on point of view, culture, era, political and religious orientation, and perhaps even professional affiliation. Why can't we accept that?
Sure, it's blatently obvious when there's a gross violation. The grey areas are the ones that give us (as free liberated psycho-babblers) the chance to learn what's acceptable/not and how to understand the mind of Dr. Bob, who owns what goes on here.
His *ss is on the line, if the sh*t hits the fan. Why shouldn't he try to protect himself? honestly, I'm amazed that we get as much latitude to talk about uncomfortable subjects as we do. I think it's absolutely amazing in fact, and I cherish the opportunity to get support from people when I cannot ever say many things to my IRL friends or family.
-Li
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 7, 2007, at 21:40:30
In reply to Re: objections, posted by Dr. Bob on September 14, 2006, at 9:23:02
> > 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.
> >
> > Racer
>
> I 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.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I'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?
>
> BobDr Bob is this what you have implemented? I see no further comments. Thanks ahead. I see that 3 again you may be a baseball fan :-)
Posted by karen_kay on January 8, 2007, at 11:11:38
In reply to Re: objections » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 7, 2007, at 21:40:30
maybe i'm just in an arguing mood (no, i'm in a very poor mood), but does anyone really think any of the deputies should be impeached? are they having affairs with mr bob? don't we have better things to do with our time than to pick on the deputies now too? good grief, i'm all for picking on mr bob, but now the poor deputies too? who thinks they can be more fair?
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 8, 2007, at 19:06:28
In reply to seriously..., posted by karen_kay on January 8, 2007, at 11:11:38
KK I am not nor have I said any of the below.
> maybe i'm just in an arguing mood (no, i'm in a very poor mood), but does anyone really think any of the deputies should be impeached? are they having affairs with mr bob? don't we have better things to do with our time than to pick on the deputies now too? good grief, i'm all for picking on mr bob, but now the poor deputies too? who thinks they can be more fair?
Posted by karen_kay on January 9, 2007, at 8:23:07
In reply to Re: seriously..., posted by Fallen4MyT on January 8, 2007, at 19:06:28
i didn't mean to suggest you had. did i somehow suggest that? why is it that everytime i put something down on thsi particular board, you have to argue with me about it? or get offended? or think that i'm speaking of you personally? it's really starting to get annoying. (not that you're annoying, just the situation)
i was just stating my opinion. it has very little to do with you.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 9, 2007, at 16:50:25
In reply to Re: seriously... » Fallen4MyT, posted by karen_kay on January 9, 2007, at 8:23:07
I am sorry you feel bad or annoyed at something *I did not* say or do. As I am not arguing with you at all, could this be just your perception? I see above you stated you were in a poor mood after saying you were in an arguing mood, maybe it has more to do with you than me.
I was just making it clear as I brought the subject up from a long time ago...that I didn't say anything against the deputies private lives. Though I do feel everything has room for improvement.
Tone of voice would help that's for sure.
I cannot address the rest of your questions because they are not based on MY reality. The only reason I am replying to this is because you asked me specific questions and I do not want to be rude. Otherwise I would not have posted. I hope things pick up for you
> i didn't mean to suggest you had. did i somehow suggest that? why is it that everytime i put something down on thsi particular board, you have to argue with me about it? or get offended? or think that i'm speaking of you personally? it's really starting to get annoying. (not that you're annoying, just the situation)
>
> i was just stating my opinion. it has very little to do with you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 0:42:09
In reply to Re: objections » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 7, 2007, at 21:40:30
> Dr Bob is this what you have implemented? I see no further comments. Thanks ahead.
Since there wasn't further discussion about that, yes, let's consider it official.
Bob
This is the end of the 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.