![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 243 to 267 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:33:15
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 15:17:19
Glad I could help a little....I was at first afraid to say anything, since I assumed everyone knew where he got the language and I would look silly and insult everyone else by mentioning the obvious (not that you guys would let on to me that I did...) but decided to risk it.
I think being away so long I've forgotten how safe it generally is (for me) to risk stuff on Babble I hesitate to risk elsewhere. Funny how therapeutic moments happen all of a sudden...:-) Not that any of this thread is about me or my intractable 'stuff' - it's certainly not. But a surprise side benefit is nice.
Posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 20:42:07
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:33:15
Don't ever be afraid to point out anything. I miss quite a lot. :)
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:52:02
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » 10derheart, posted by Dinah on November 8, 2010, at 20:42:07
> Don't ever be afraid to...
hah! Easy for *you* to say. Not so much for me especially since I (still) fear "looking dumb" or somehow embarrassing myself more than almost anything. Just ask my all my therapists of the last eight years or so...;-)
But I try to ignore the fear and occasionally succeed.
I don't think you miss as much as you think you do.
Posted by 10derheart on November 8, 2010, at 20:56:03
In reply to C'mon, pro-block members, chime in, posted by ron1953 on November 2, 2010, at 10:46:57
I am not pro-block. I dislike posters being blocked and wish it was never needed. But I do feel they are a useful, if unfortunate, tool sometimes.
I am pro-civility and pro-guideline-following.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 8, 2010, at 23:42:45
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 4:21:11
I feel very similarly to muffled on this (and related) issues.
> I imagine a hypothetical poster X:
> X sees themselves as a powerless victim and me as an uncaring persecutor.I am wary of your setting things up in this way.
You seem fond of characterizing us (or hypothetical posters) as characterizing you as 'evil' or a 'persecutor'. I think that in doing so you give yourself license to write off our views or criticisms as pathological or the result of pathology / immature thinking rather than the result of mature thinking.
(Do you characterize your colleagues similarly when they disagree with you?)
> X has the power to bend over backward to help other posters.
And many X's have done so.
> X also has the power to get themselves blocked. X uses the latter power, repeatedly, which seems self-destructive.
Some do, yes. Why is this? Typically because they were engaged in the 'bend over backward to help other posters' process when you blocked them for reasons they could not understand.
> What brings X back after even a very long block?My reasons are similar to Muffled. When I'm here, that is. I go months without checking the boards these days.
> Maybe my unconditional love (blocked posters are always welcome back). But it's not completely unconditional. That would be safe for them, but would require me to give up my power to choose whom to love.
I never thought you loved unconditionally. I actually don't believe in such a thing. IMHO all love is conditional (though this is controversial as some believe in God or think they would love their kid even if the kid turned into Hitler or whatever).
IF we simplistically assume for the sake of argument that you love those you don't block and don't love those you block (but love those who return after a block) then the issue becomes one of whether you choose to love or not love seems a lot like whether you roll a 1 or a 5 on a dice. AKA: random. arbitrary. unpredictable. You think you make sense (of course you do). Others don't see rhyme or reason. Thats a problem (it seems to me).
> Does that scenario resonate with any of you?So... Not really. I'm sorry but I don't follow what you are trying to say. I am trying... Because I figure that you are... But I genuinely don't understand.
>It reminds me again of shame and guilt:
oooooookayyyyyyyyyy...
> > Shame ... comes to you as a feeling so deep and so incapable of your getting a grasp on it that it seems there is nothing you can do.
> > guilt is one of the great inventions of nature. For mature guilt lets you know what is unacceptable, and offers you opportunity to do something about it. ... worth can be defined by realistic possibilities, not by the un-focused and "hidden" demands of shame-making expectations.
Oh, I get it. You think that our not understanding whether you are going to block or not is the result of our inability to distinguish guilt (which we should be feeling) rather than shame (which is why we are doing the whole immature thinking thing?).
Because your blocking or not makes sense to you - you think it should to us, hence you think we choose whether we will be blocked or not, whether we get your love or not.
Well... That's... Convenient (i.e., ego boosting) for you. I must say. And... Thats what's important (really) - right?
I mean... From (at least some) of our perspective... The problem is that your blocks aren't predictable, expected, or justifyable. There isn't rhyme or reason. It looks arbitrary or decided on some factor that we don't grasp (hair color? name beginning with a certain letter of the alphabet? whatever feelings you have attached or not attached to a posting name because of your early childhood experiences?) Since it isn't predictable and doesn't make sense posters often impose an order the only way they know how: By taking control of whether they will be blocked or not. The most obvious (and least harmful way to the community) of doing that is to: be uncivil to you and get predictably blocked. If you aren't going to be more predictable in your blocking behavior... What other option is there?
Leave?
In order for us to feel guilt for what you choose to block your choices would need to be understandable.
And back to you...
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 1:01:10
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities-yeah, sure :(, posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
> *Often we here don't even *understand* what the fr*g your reasoning is....and sometimes there's warnings, and sometimes not....
> I can get myself blocked, but oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked, and they can't prevent what they don't understand.I feel the passion in Muff's sentiment here... it's almost an outcry. From my foxhole, I think the difficulty for blocked members in understanding how they got there is the biggest reason that:
1. Blocks frequent, long, and are often ineffective in causing the one blocked to follow site guidelines when they return and
2. The pain runs deep in this community regarding the blocking issue.
Members getting blocked and re-blocked to the point that they are running into these 12-month things is because they DON'T understand how they got there. These are good people. Many of them are in therapy. People in therapy are generally interested in growing and learning to cope better with impairments they didn't ask for. If a member understood what was getting them blocked - most would not keep falling into it. But many genuinely do not... because the modeling they got growing up was awful... because they have biological vulnerabilities that affect their behavior over which they have much less control than they would otherwise... because they have suffered so many injuries in life that they have not yet found the balanced state one has to maintain in order to consistently color between the lines here.
I have an idea that I believe will maintain Dr. Bob's civility principles as they are, without causing the disruption, the pain, and the eternal blocks. I suggest some kind of "Mediator" system - with the members who have demonstrated wisdom in these things serving as Mediators - to step in and assist a member who has violated the guidelines - - to help calm the fires and bring the 'infractor' back 'into the fold' by walking with them thru it, modeling reparatory work, etc.
Blocks could be reserved for those who refuse to participate (for whatever reason) in that process.
Dr. Bob - part of your purpose in the current blocking system is that members learn more appropriate behavior, and that members assist each other. The current system is not really serving your purposes. I think the kind of system I'm thinking of might.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 4:21:11
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on November 8, 2010, at 23:42:45
> Thats classic Bob.
> He can say the most extrordinally...well....to be kind...odd things sometimes....things that seem rather odd, and yes, could cause provocation.
> But they are so off the wall, most people don't really take them seriously in their content.You mean they're not listening to what I'm saying?
> I think ... when the other person seems to not be able/willing to 'hear' what is being said, well than ya, that is frustrating and SAD.
I agree.
> oftimes people don't even understand WHY they are being blocked
> They KNOW what to do, but they CHOOSE not toA or B? Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
> Yes, it is self destructive, but they are doing it in their desperation to TRY and effect change and to warn others
1. There are ways to warn others that aren't self-destructive.
2. When 1 out of every 2500 posts results in a block
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/947061.html
I don't know how vulnerable others feel.
> Bob, you left a scar on my leg as surely as if you wielded the knife yourself. Maybe the SI is an innapropriate thing, but this is a mental health site and many people with MH issues have poor ways of coping. Thats why we go to T, to learn better ones. It was DIRECTLY due to my response to your overkill and very surprizing actions. You need to take responsibility for your actions cuz they DO HURT people.
>
> muffledI take responsibility for my actions. I kept you from posting. I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
> whether you choose to love or not love seems a lot like whether you roll a 1 or a 5 on a dice. AKA: random. arbitrary. unpredictable.
>
> alexandra_kMe being random/arbitrary/unpredictable = posters being powerless.
--
> You seem fond of characterizing us (or hypothetical posters) as characterizing you as 'evil' or a 'persecutor'. I think that in doing so you give yourself license to write off our views or criticisms as pathological or the result of pathology / immature thinking rather than the result of mature thinking.
>
> alexandra_kFair enough. I can also imagine a hypothetical poster Y:
Y sees me as misguided and themselves as a martyr.
I have the power to block people. Y has the power to get themselves blocked. Y uses that power, repeatedly. It's self-destructive, but calls attention to my misguidedness. What brings Y back after even a very long block? Their devotion to their cause.
There's more than one way, however, to be a martyr.
> > Mahatma Gandhi outlined several rules for civil resisters (or satyagrahi) in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire. For instance, they were to express no anger, never retaliate, submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities, surrender personal property when confiscated by the authorities but refuse to surrender property held in trust, refrain from swearing and insults (which are contrary to ahimsa), refrain from saluting the Union flag, and protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Theories_and_techniques
That, of course, is *civil* disobedience. These days, we hear more about uncivil martyrs. Maybe the unrest here can help us empathize with them.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 4:21:11
> Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
They do. But they don't have the power to compel an answer - even less to compel one that helps them understand.
Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
> There are ways to warn others that aren't self-destructive.
Yeah. And people do seem to be doing that.
> I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
Maybe think of the scar as a physical overflowing / expression / concretization of an inner pain (suffering / torment) that resulted from being isolated from ones friends unexpectedly.
> Me being random/arbitrary/unpredictable = posters being powerless.
Yes. We could empirically test whether you are random / arbitrary / unpredictable (e.g., by seeing whether independent judges could reliably distinguish posts you would block from posts you would not). So it is an objective feature of your blocking that I'm talking about here - and not some 'distorted perception arising from pathology'.
> Y sees me as misguided and themselves as a martyr.
Sigh. I'm not sure that is very much better. I prefer:
Z sees you as unpredictable in your blocking behavior and themselves as being in the position where unpredictably being isolated from the community for up to one year and branded 'uncivil' outweighs any good that could come from partaking.
But going with the martyr thing for a while (even though I'm fond of Socrates, myself)...
> submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
(ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)
> protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'... Isn't that what a number of posters are doing?
Was Socrates 'uncivil' - do you think?
Posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:19:36
In reply to Re: Babble :( » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on November 6, 2010, at 7:34:08
> Would it surprise you to hear that I really wish there was more balance on Admin at least in part because I'd prefer to be mad at him myself sometimes without feeling the need to be fair to him?It doesn't surprise me at all. I understand what you mean. (((Dinah))). I miss you, too.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2010, at 7:34:54
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
> > Posters have the power to ask if they don't understand why.
>
> They do. But they don't have the power to compel an answer - even less to compel one that helps them understand.Must they ask Bob? Other posters may have an inkling of the reason.
> Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
That's your perception.
> > I didn't leave that scar. You need to take responsibility for your actions.
>
> Maybe think of the scar as a physical overflowing / expression / concretization of an inner pain (suffering / torment) that resulted from being isolated from ones friends unexpectedly.And if a poster cut someone else? Would that also be Dr. Bob's fault? Is it different if they cut themselves? It would be a bit disturbing to be at a Babble where Dr. Bob let the fear of self harm guide his decisions. It would give those who self harm a fair amount of power compared to those who don't. Dr. Bob's a mental health practitioner. He understands the boundaries.
There have been times on Babble when I self injured because of my feelings of hurt that came from my interactions with other posters. I remember at least one time that I wrote something about posting with blood on my fingers. To my utter relief, Babble went down as I hit submit. (Or possibly before, I suppose. I'd have no way of knowing it went down before I tried to do something.) I was so shaken with relief. It almost felt like diving intervention. Because to have posted that would have been the ultimate in accusing, I think. "You have caused the blood on my keyboard." And of course, they hadn't. They'd been less than civil and less than kind, but they hadn't caused me to hurt myself. That was my choice.
> Sigh. I'm not sure that is very much better. I prefer:
>
> Z sees you as unpredictable in your blocking behavior and themselves as being in the position where unpredictably being isolated from the community for up to one year and branded 'uncivil' outweighs any good that could come from partaking.And yet partaking continues. And often in such a way that increases the chance of a block.
> If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'... Isn't that what a number of posters are doing?
Yes, I think it's possible that a number of posters are trying to protect new Babblers from injury by warning them off Babble. And yet Dr. Bob allows it...
Doesn't sound like the actions of the man you describe.
I miss you too Alex. You know where to find me. Sorry I missed you in chat the other day. Dratted time zones.
((( Alex )))
I do understand, you know. I even sympathize. But I can't see how it's in your best interests to see Dr. Bob in this way, when to my mind, he'd done an awful lot to show his caring for you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
In reply to I'm pro-block, posted by vwoolf on November 3, 2010, at 0:51:25
> Believe it or not I do support blocks, and I have said so often before.
>
> I think it is like the frame in therapy, without which it is not therapy. And like the frame in therapy, everyone hates it.
>
> I think that if we as posters are prepared to look, we will see ourselves reflected in the way we respond here on Babble. Bob is merely representing, in a shadowy internet kind of way, something internal to ourselves. He stays so far out of Babble that we can't know what he is really thinking. And so we start to project.....The frame (or block) represents the edge between ourselves and reality, and so defines us. It's not really about Bob at all, although of course he is the one who holds the frame and so catches all the crossfire.
>
> vwoolfThanks for reframing (sorry, I couldn't resist) this discussion. Could you elaborate on how a block might define a poster?
This reminds me of an idea we talked about when I was there, a new board that would focus on, to use your language above, learning about oneself from how one responds here. I like that idea very much. A lot of details would need to be worked out, but maybe it would make sense to start by trying to get an idea of how much interest there might be?
--
> I think Dr. Bob should have engaged [Twinleaf] more on an explanation of where the limits lie rather than to direct threats of blocking.
> That's what saddens me about Dr. Bob's interactions with Twinleaf this time. I think Twinleaf recognized the benefit of approaching Dr. Bob in a more constructive way, and Dr. Bob didn't perceive the difference as I did.
>
> Dinah> Twinleaf's case has been the saddest of my time at Babble, I suppose because so evidently she has tried to be a kind, considerate and supportive poster.
>
> I'm not saying having issues of principle justifies anything, but I do think context is important. A person who had been a deputy once said that the training involved evaluation of posts out of context. ... Maybe he has some problem with people taking up issues of principle, I don't know.
>
> sigismundDeputy training involves posts out of context before posts in context. Like learning math involves multiplication tables before word problems. What issues of principle did you see her as taking up? Maybe I was wrong to engage her the way I did. Twinleaf, are you reading this? Do you have any questions about where the limits lie?
--
> Yes, they were straightforward, and yes, they were brutal, but I got more therapeutic value in six months than I had received in years of professional "help". ... The members of the group grew stronger and closer by going THROUGH stuff, not by avoiding it.
> "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run, than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller
>
> ron1953Ron did seem to be exposing himself to danger and we did seem to be going through some stuff here. Was he saying he wanted me to be more straightforward and brutal?
> I thot I'd have a wee bit off fun and bypass autoasterisk for the word f*rt. I was feeling fun and playful. I later came back and tried to post someone and it said I was blocked.
>
> muffled> "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
> The sinners are much more fun" - Billy Joel
>
> ron1953Since your freedom of speech is limited here, I guess your freedom to have fun may be, too.
--
> Hmmm I was going to turn ON my tweet etc buttons so this could go 'out' there, but I dunno how?
> LOL, oh well.
> I did find the facebook, and the tweets are just new people added.
>
> muffledThe FAQ section on the buttons:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#sharetweet
The settings page:
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
Remember that if you turn them on, they're displayed after all your posts, not just particular ones.
The server automatically welcomes new posters on Twitter (which is linked to Facebook), but some tweets are from me. There might not have been any recent ones from me when you looked before, but there are now:
http://twitter.com/psycho_babel
--
> I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
>
> SolsticeI also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
Bob
Posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 10:08:28
> > I wonder what it would be like if there were a process where Dr. Bob's rules remained, but there were members who have demonstrated balance and the knack (and interest) in stepping in to mediate the issue. Instead of Deputies to enforce, there would be Mediators to intervene.
> >
> > Solstice
>
> I also had the idea that posters could help other posters avoid blocks. :-)
>
> But not of designating specific posters. That reminds me of the Elders Council idea that hyperfocus had:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/968745.html
>
> BobYes, and after that initial post, I did eventually run across hyperfocus' excellent Elders Council idea. I think that any idea, or combination of ideas, that can work to achieve your objectives in a more successful and more merciful format deserves your serious consideration.
If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly. Maybe they can work together.
The current blocking system is only achieving part of your objectives, and it does so at the expense of other objectives. It's often not possible to have everything, but I think some very worthwhile ideas have been thrown in the hat that have a much higher chance of not only more closely achieving all of your objectives, but also of healing so long and deep injuries to the community that take place in the current blocking system.
There is no avoiding the reality that every single thing we do in life has a consequence - whether pleasant or unpleasant. But if in administering consequences we get strapped into a narrow notion that in order to be effective consequences have to be harsh, unyielding, exponential, and absolute... then we are shutting out the creative ideas that really might be able to achieve All the goals of consequences (of the blocking sort here).
Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power. And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic. A poster may be swimming along just fine, and suddenly find themselves threatened with a block and be shocked. For people in this community, threats of any type are acutely felt, and many have not sufficiently recovered from the trauma that got them here in the first place to meet your expectation that they say to themselves "Oh, looks like I need to get myself a civility buddy to help me figure this out." The people who can do that already do it. But there are a lot of posters who find themselves facing a block who need someone with a helpful and compassionate heart to just step in and model for them, explain to them, guide them back to the 'straight & narrow.' They won't find their way back on their own. And a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone. The ones that can do that already will. But there are a bunch of good folks on here who struggle with it - and end up with excessively long blocks, or they huddle behind a rock with their arms over their heads, scared to death to risk posting.
There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
Solstice
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by alexandra_k on November 9, 2010, at 6:12:12
> Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
Wherever it's set, it detects someone's breath spray.
> Z sees you as unpredictable
And how does Z see themselves? And what brings Z back after even a very long block?
> > submit to the opponent's orders and assaults, submit to arrest by the authorities
>
> (ho ho you'd like that wouldn't you!!!)ho ho = it's clear the disobedience here isn't civil
> > protect officials from insults and assaults even at the risk of the resister's own life.
>
> If we think of 'officials' as 'new posters' and the label of 'uncivil' and a blocking as an 'insult' or 'assault'...In the context of civil disobedience here:
officials = me and deputies
insults and assaults = incivility
resisters = martyrsBob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 9, 2010, at 12:31:34
> If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969367.html
> Regardless of the system designed I think it's important that there be a way to avoid blocks that REALLY puts the power in the hands of the poster. If they are unable (for whatever reason) to understand how they ended up blocked - then they have no power.
The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.
> And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.
> a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
I think it's worth a try. The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
> There has just got to be a better way... but it is going to take serious consideration on your part for there to be any modification of the system.
True, but the system is only half of the equation.
Bob
Posted by muffled on November 9, 2010, at 18:26:02
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
>
> In the context of civil disobedience here:
>
> officials = me and deputies
> insults and assaults = incivility
> resisters = martyrs
>
> BobWhat deputies????
Definition of INSULT
1: a gross indignity
2: injury to the body or one of its parts; also : something that causes or has a potential for causing such insult <pollution and other environmental insults>Definition of ASSAULT
a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)Definition of UNCIVIL
1: not civilized : barbarous
2: lacking in courtesy : ill-mannered, impolite <uncivil remarks>
3: not conducive to civic harmony and welfare
Definition of RESISTER
: one that resists; especially : one who actively opposes the policies of a governmentDefinition of MARTYR
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principleSo, to me not all assaults are uncivil.
Alot of what are being considered asaults are just discussion.
Sometimes insults are just facts being pointed out.
Sometimes resisters will choose to martyr themsleves, some times not.
But resisters doesn't equal martyrs.
If noone ever resisted, we women still wouldn't have a vote.
If noone ever resisted, black people would still be treated as less than human. If noone resisted there would be no government policy changed for the better.
etc.
And I not trying to be disobedient here.
I just want to effect change where I can.
I have effected changes w/in the area I live.
If people band together with a common goal policies can be changed.
Its the squeaky wheel that gets oiled in this world.
If everyone just sat at home and noone dared to speak up, this world would be a sorry place.
I beleive that where I am in community, I have a voice, along with others in the community. Be it my municipality, school district, church etc.
I want to be involved here, but over the years I have concluded that I can't work w/Bob cuz he doesn't seem to work with others well. His communication skills, which are uber important in this scenario, seem to be lacking.
I can't work w/someone who is a rougue and doesn't work WITH the group.Definition of ROGUE
1: resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable <capsized by a rogue wave>If Bob could change his spots, I'd run w/him, but I have yet to see any real change in his overall behaviours.
he has 'seemed' to work w/us before.
Is this just the same thing? I don't know.
Look at the whole deputy scenario.
So, ya, I have eternal faith in miracles, but alot of doubt about Bob's abilities to carry these ideas through.
Not that Bob is bad. Bob is Bob. I even kinda like him to some extent. But I Can't abide his managment of this place.
I still want to dream tho....
Posted by Deneb on November 9, 2010, at 23:16:37
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities-yeah, sure :(, posted by muffled on November 8, 2010, at 15:30:11
Hey Muffled,
I just wanted to say I'm sorry you were so hurt over your block. I know blocks hurt a lot. I've been blocked several times and at times I didn't think I was going to survive. Dr. Bob blocked me all those times. I don't hate him though. It's not personal even though it feels personal at the time. I'll probably be hurt if Dr. Bob blocks me again, but I wouldn't be devastated this time. I also do everything I can to be civil to avoid a block in the first place.
Dr. Bob doesn't want anything bad to happen to you if you get blocked and get upset. He's just doing his job as admin. He has to block people when they are uncivil. He has to be fair and apply the rules equally to everyone.
((((Muffled)))))
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 18:21:37
Dr. Bob - I can't tell you how much I appreciate the dialogue..
> > If I remember correctly, the Elders Council addresses the blocks themselves.. determining if they are merited, etc. My Mediator idea is centered around helping posters who get themselves in 'trouble' repeatedly.
>
> Then maybe that's more like what Dinah's calling volunteer civility buddies?Yes.. and I posted more about it in response to another of your posts. Bottom line (in my way of thinking) is that naturally, all CB's will be volunteer. It's not a job anyone will be coerced to perform. I think they need to be an organized group.. an 'entity' if you will. As I said in my other post, people who have the insight to understand they need a helping hand probably already get it. I'm focusing on the members who are genuinely unclear about why their post was incivil. Incivil posts are generally the product of 'hot' emotions. 'Hot' emotions generally shut down rational thinking and executive functioning. Some members may have emotions that escalate faster than they are realistically able to manage. There are situations like PTSD that (as I'm sure you know) keeps their fight or flight on a hair trigger... there's emotional dysregulation, all kinds of things. Members who cope with being split into 'parts' may end up with one part losing control, and the other parts paying the price.. a dilemma Muffled so poetically described repeatedly. That's where your expectations get unwieldy. I'm thinking of a Civility Buddy "process" where an incivil poster is 'deposited'.. and if they want to restore their posting privileges, they will walk through the process with a Civility Buddy to completion - satisfaction of your legitimate requirement that they repair the breech.
>
> The power to avoid blocks is already really in the hands of posters. Even if they're really unable to understand how they end up blocked, they still have the power to stop posting.I don't think enough factors of the dynamic are included. Think of what we know about abused women and why they stay in abusive marriages, even at the risk of the well being of their children. Do they have the power to walk out the door with their kids and find refuse? Sure. But they don't FEEL the power. That's what I'm trying to distinguish. If a poster is cited for incivility, each and every time they will have to make a choice. i) CB Process; or ii) the mercy of Dr. Bob. That kind of a thing will TEACH them about the power they have in a tangible way.
"Power to stop posting" - while it certainly 'is' a choice they can make.. please understand that it seems silly to me to consider that viable. They are here because they want to post. Set something up that helps the folks who have not been able to keep themselves out of trouble.
> > And as far as your suggestion that posters could ask you why they got blocked, I see that as limited. You don't elaborate much, and your writing style is easily interpreted as cryptic.
>
> If I need to elaborate more, posters have the power to ask again. Plus, as Dinah said, other posters can elaborate.This is might be too loose of a thing to work well with the posters who have their own spot in your block book. These are folks whose emotions get hot very quickly. They need a structured process where their privileges are suspended - and they have to make a coice. Cooperate with a CB who will walk them to restoration, or opt for the mercy of Dr. Bob. You're asking people who's brains have been hijacked by hot emotions to think, reason, and figure things out as if they are in a more rational state. That is just not a fair expectation.. and in my estimation, that is why the blocks - even year long blocks - are not successful. It will never end if the status quo is maintained.
> > a general call to the community for someone who cares to volunteer to help just hasn't worked. That's why I'm thinking that if there are designated people who are trusted here can step in and walk with the poster in danger so they don't have to figure it out alone.
>
> I think it's worth a try.I am thrilled beyond what I can possibly describe!
> The risk is that a poster might not have any friends designated, and they might be influenced more by their friends than a designated person they don't know.
Well.. in what I envision, this shouldn't detract from the system's effectiveness. Civility Buddies would be an organized group of balanced, respected members who have volunteered to serve. An incivil poster who hasn't retracted on their own would be 'deposited' into the CB process. They would not be able to post, and would have a single decision to make. Either: i) work with a CB who is available; or ii) sit there and wait for a CB you like; or iii) throw yourself upon the mercy of Dr. Bob. If they need a space of time to restore their emotional 'baseline' - suspension of privileges provides that. Depending on the nature of the incivility and nature of the incivil poster, the CB 'process' could be hours short - or days/weeks long. If they become unacceptably incivil to the CB 'walking' with them, they can be defaulted to the mercy of Dr. Bob. I think the main thing is that this kind of process would provide the space of time for emotions to cool, for rationality to be restored, and for them to work with someone who can model for them - a peer who can help them understand where their communication crossed the line.Entirely eliminating blocks is unrealistic. But this provides a process that is flexible and responsive to a poster's willingness to learn and cooperate.
Again, thank you for dialoging about it Bob. You've got a motivated bunch of people here, and I have confidence that they will see it through if you will stay in this thing while we all work together to put together a structure likely to more mercifully succeed than the current one at meeting your objectives.
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:37:50
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
I think it's really important to point out that some civility buddies might not be comfortable with a forced civility buddy situation, and that's perfectly ok. There is a very different dynamic with people who voluntarily seek advice.
For those volunteers who feel comfortable with that situation, mandatory civility buddies could certainly be an option. Dr. Bob was enthusiastic about the idea a while back, but posters were less enthusiastic.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:43:43
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dr. Bob, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 0:27:23
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/969518.html
What you describe, with mandatory civility buddies, could be a part of what Dr. Bob is asking about here.
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 1:27:08
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 0:37:50
> I think it's really important to point out that some civility buddies might not be comfortable with a forced civility buddy situation, and that's perfectly ok. There is a very different dynamic with people who voluntarily seek advice.
You are absolutely right. Right now, the Civility Buddy system is informal. (let me know if I don't understand it correctly). If someone is getting upset about something, they can contact their CB and do a 'consult.' Vent... have a post reviewed before submittal... get guidance about staying inside the lines.Maybe the informal CB set up that exists would continue just as it is. The people who use it, though, are not the ones I'm hoping to help. I'd speculate they don't end up with gross blocks. Maybe a PBC from time to time, but they have figured out how to help themselves stay out of trouble.
A 'formal' CB process would of course be staffed by volunteers as well. Those volunteering for it would obviously have to recognize that most of those 'deposited' in the formal CB process are walking in without an understanding of why what they posted was not civil. They might indeed be upset. Bob could 'suspend' their posting privileges while they decide whether to cooperate with the CB process or not. If they opt to cooperate, their immediate motivation will be avoiding a block. If they fight against the CB assisting them, become incivil toward their CB, etc.. then they will end up in Bob's hands. I think what it will alllow for is 1) Takes Bob out of the equation - the whole trigger-finger with the blocks thing; 2) a suspension of posting privilege with the very real possibility of avoiding a regular block; 3) a cool-off period where they may recover nicely on their own - or at least be willing to genuinely engage in the CB process that will get them where they want to go - which is actively posting. As peers, CB's will be able to talk to and relate to these folks much better than Bob can in his role as admin. He is perceived as a bona fide threat - especially by those who get blocked repeatedly.I don't think it should be viewed or characterized as "forcing" anyone or anything. As it is, people commit various levels of incivility and there is only one option - they are at the mercy of Bob's perceptions - his time to process it in context - and whether they colored outside the lines before and have a block escalation thing going on. They can still choose that route. That would actuallly be the 'default.' But with what I'm talking about, they could also opt for assistance by a cohesive group of Civility Buddies who are committed to the process of modeling, explaining, teaching civil responses and repair work to members who got off track. Anyone who wants to fight against that probably needs to be blocked. At least, though, they'd have the choice. And even for those who end up blocked - there could be a mechanism where they come back when they are ready and contact a 'formal' CB to start the process of repair.
Again, these are just ideas. Dinah - your experience working with and through things here gives you insight that I won't have - so why don't you just play with the ideas. Run scenarios through your head. I an really, really good at problem-solving and designing systems so I will help in any way I can to help put something together that will work for the community in its goal to have a more merciful system for addressing incivility than the one in place now.
>
> For those volunteers who feel comfortable with that situation, mandatory civility buddies could certainly be an option. Dr. Bob was enthusiastic about the idea a while back, but posters were less enthusiastic.
No one would be 'forced' to use a CB. It would not be mandatory. That would be fraught with problems. Incivil posters would have to choose it to get access. If they don't choose it - then they just go the current route and are at Bob's mercy. He can just block away - and no one need feel distressed about it, because they opted for it themselves. Of course.. if their head clears later and they decide using a CB might be to their benefit afterall... then they are welcome to access the CB system at that point... and after they have worked though the process.. the block they'd initially opted for becomes unnecessary.I just don't think the punishing nature of the current blocking set-up facilitates what Bob wants to create. You've aptly cited the big problem with overlooking the offending poster's willingness to get within the lines. That is huge. And I think that even if there is a delay in that willingness rising to the surface - as soon as a blocked poster voices they are willing - they should be welcomed with open arms into the process. There's no place in the system for incessant arguing about blocks - and PBC's - but I think that with the process I'm suggesting - there would be no need to argue about blocks.
Solstice
Posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
> Nominations and elections?
>
> Solstice> Is Bob going to give a council some tools?
> Is he going to give them as a council some of his power?
>
> muffled> I think it would be a good idea to have a review board. As it stands now, blocks have no real relation to a poster's willingness to return and abide by site rules. I'd rather see blocks be lifted if a poster agrees to abide by site guidelines. The first time, it could be based solely on their word that they are ready. After that, they could propose concrete ways that could help them stay within site guidelines. For example, choosing a civility buddy, choosing not to post on topics that have proved troublesome, etc.
>
> Dinah>What if the council had the power to lift blocks? (after some minimum cooling-off period) What tools would they need? >Would they be given criteria for making their decisions or would they have the freedom to decide however they wanted?
>Would there be any requirements besides being nominated?>FYI, requirements to be a deputy:
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#required
>Bob
> I think if Bob were to actually set up a "council" of some sort to consult and discuss his admin policies with, it should be balanced with different points of view.
>
> Free>Would you want to elect them?
>Bob
Hmm.... Council of Wise Elders and Civil Buddies...Thich Nhat Hanh and Linehan would be excellent models...too bad they're not available.You're serious, Bob? I do see your openness and I appreciate it, but...
This is all very complicated, and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage. Many of the people who received long blocks were wonderful "civil" people(some were even die-hard Bob/Babble supporters), but they got caught up in a maddening cycle of getting pbc'd/blocked for some unfair interpretations. Mistakes are bound to happen, but it happened enough to not feel safe anymore.
Yeah, it's not easy.
Honestly, a lot of people getting in the mix with a lot of power to say what's civil and not civil, and to block and unblock, with different interpretations. To dictate which threads/topics are/aren't troublesome to post on, could get way more confusing, crazy-making, etc.
Given a choice, I would take you, Bob, and Racer (who's doing a great job moderating) doing admin work WITH REDUCED BLOCKS. And if anyone wants a civility buddy for some advice, great.
To answer this part of your question: "Would there be any requirements besides being nominated?"
A council member should possess objectivity and humility, without any vested interests in the outcome of a given conflict.
Far as electing Babblers...off the top of my head, Twinleaf and Sigsmund (sorry again Sig) would be qualified. And Solstice. (Hey, Solstice, I may not agree with all of your ideas but I do appreciate your sincere efforts. :-))
Posted by alexandra_k on November 10, 2010, at 3:54:20
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities, posted by Dr. Bob on November 9, 2010, at 17:47:39
> > Why set the drunk driving detector to detect breath spray?
> Wherever it's set, it detects someone's breath spray.That is your choice. It is your choice to warn / block people for breath spray levels (at times). It is your choice not to be less trigger happy (when it suits you).
It isn't just MY perception that you are too trigger happy with your 'uncivil' labels and your blocks. Many posters have posted about this over the years (oh, yeah, you forgot).
> And what brings Z back after even a very long block?
I'm actually wondering that myself... I think part of what you like about this whole 'civility monitor' and 'elders council' idea is that it focuses the community on supporting your decisions to make people stop using breath spray to detract from the issue of your (unfairly) labeling people 'uncivil' and blocking them for it.
I'm going to be going now, actually.
Best, all.
Posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 7:34:51
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
Very fair points, Free
> This is all very complicated,
I agree that it sounds complicated... but I think that operationally, it's a lot less complicated than it looks. Lots of new ideas are being thrown into the hat, which is good - but looks complicated - until we pick out the ones that we pick out and piece together to build the framework.> and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage.
We don't have a system yet, so let's just talk about Civility Buddies. In what I envision, they would not be "Little Bob's" scouring the site for incivilities. They wouldn't issue PBC's or blocks. The people volunteering to serve already have a history of being what I think of as "Levelers" or "Peacemakers." With no systemn at all, they already tend to step in when things are heating up and blow cool wind into the mix... and do so very effectively. This would just be a formalization of their role as "Peacemakers." They are not "juries," much less "judges."Civility Buddies - whether informal or formal, are NOT a recreation of Deputies. Maybe they don't need any power at all. They are identiefied.. maybe they have a CB after their names.. for example Dinah's would say: Dinah, CB. That way it would be easy to find one when you need one - and no one would have to keep track of remembering who all is in that role. They'd be active posters anyway - so CB's will be visibly present.
The only one who has the authority to PBC or Block would be Dr. Bob. He would continue to identify and cite incivilities, just as he does now. PBC's would work just like they do now. Maybe CB's would notice a PBC, because the PBC'd poster might (or might not) access the informal Civility Buddy system. The formal CB process isn't activated until Bob issues a Block. Civility Buddies wouldn't be responsible for issuing PBC's or blocks. They are not the police. The CB system is more like the bail bondsmen, so-to-speak. Maybe the only 'power' they have is to release a poster who's posting privilege has been suspended, based on that poster's cooperation with the CB process.
The goal is NOT to hunt down incivilities. The goal is to restore posting privileges to members who find themselves blocked (or in danger of a block) by Bob.
And in reality - there really don't seem to be that many PBC's or blocks, but I only frequent Psychology, Social and Admin. On those boards days and weeks can go by before I see a PBC.. and longer before I see a block.
I hope what I'm describing sounds like something folks can work with. And bottom line is that as it is, Bob issues PBC's, block warnings, and blocks at his own discretion as it is. The system I'm thinking of wouldn't change that. It would just provide a mechanism for repair to take place.. for blocks to be released.. for privileges to be restored.. for much less contention over valued posters being 'banished.' Posters themselves would, in essence, be setting the length of their blocks... because accessing the Civility Buddy system is the key that unlocks the block.
Just to let those who are actively participating in our effort to construct something, I have a full day of responsibilities that will prevent me from checking in until later this evening.
MAIN THING: No judges or juries. Nobody scouring the site for incivilities. Everybody has the right to monitor their own selves, including asking for help if they find themselves getting 'heated.' If they find themselves facing a block (or find themselves blocked), rather than them or others fighting the merits of the citation, they can call on a CB to help them work their way out of the block. CB's won't always be available. They may have to wait hours or days to get through the process - but they won't be waiting weeks, months, or a year for relief.
Feedback?
Solstice
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 7:59:57
In reply to Re: I'm pro-frame » Dinah, posted by Solstice on November 10, 2010, at 1:27:08
The only informal civility buddy system that exists now are between two posters who work out an arrangement for themselves. There's no way of knowing how often it's used. I don't hear a lot of talk about it at all.
Dr. Bob has *just* ok'd a concept where people would be available to answer civility questions, or in general be open to helping posters who ask to get comfortable with the civility guidelines or avoid blocks. It's a brand new idea, and I'm not sure what will happen with it. The only designation would be a list of people who are willing to do it.
It's a far different thing to be involved with pairing up with a poster who would be blocked otherwise, even if they chose the civility buddy as the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's a different level of commitment, and a different level of stress. If a poster felt willing to volunteer to do that, it'd be great. For myself, it would depend on my relationship with the poster. It's been my experience from previous suggestions from Dr. Bob along these lines that posters don't really appreciate the idea of having someone check their posts. The resulting tension could be difficult.
But what I really want is to clarify to those considering volunteering that that would be an additional level of commitment they could volunteer for. This is a new concept, and I think it might deter volunteers if they were unsure of the level of responsibility that would be involved. At this point, volunteering would just mean being willing to help those who are unsure of the rules, or I statements, or Dr. Bob's requirements.
Anything to do with the council of elders would be separate entirely. That would be a different subset of posters, although I suppose the subsets could intersect.
Peacemakers don't *have* to be certified by Dr. Bob, or have any special title. Dr. Bob would prefer, from what I gather of his posts, that all posters be peacemakers. Stepping into a current situation unasked is probably best done by those posters who believe they can help in that given situation. And perhaps best not done by someone who has been appointed to do so, due to the resentment that can arise. Or at least that's been my experience. Dr. Bob and other posters may believe differently.
I know you've read the archives. Are you aware of the anger that can result from efforts to help? I suspect that anyone with formal standing may be seen as a tool of Dr. Bob. Any effort to get people to follow site guidelines can realistically be seen that way, no matter the intent of the helper. That might lessen the effectiveness of an intervention.
But perhaps my previous experience makes me overly cautious.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2010, at 8:12:25
In reply to Re: realistic possibilities » Dr. Bob, posted by Free on November 10, 2010, at 3:31:04
Former deputies are current posters, you know.
I'd also say that we enforced Dr. Bob's policies at whatever level of strictness was currently requested by him. It did change, and we did our best to comply.
It's true that there are fewer admin actions now, in part because there are fewer posts, in part because there are fewer posters unfamiliar with site guidelines, in part because Dr. Bob varies a lot in his time to oversee Babble so that things aren't flagged as much when he isn't here while the exact same thing might be flagged when he is here, and perhaps in part because with his lowered time and with the lowered posting volume, his perception might be that the standards can be loosened some. I've always suspected that some of Dr. Bob's "inconsistency" could be due to his view of the current demands of the site. Deputies did not have that power.
Deputies didn't have any desire to parse posts with a fine tooth comb. We did perhaps have a greater commitment to consistency. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your view of consistency. And we were around on a more consistent basis. Again, that can be a good or bad thing depending on your view of consistency. Certainly lowered oversight could be welcome by those who prefer greater freedom.
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.