![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on September 13, 2013, at 10:02:44
In reply to Re: support and hope » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 13, 2013, at 6:51:32
I see redirected want to be on the thread. Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2013, at 10:06:27
In reply to Re: support and hope, posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2013, at 6:15:00
> > there were a number of follow-ups to it, but none to a new poster asking for support immediately below it.
>
> and what am I... chopped liver?I meant when I first saw it. Thanks for your support. :-)
Bob
Posted by sleepygirl2 on September 15, 2013, at 14:36:25
In reply to Re: support and hope, posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2013, at 10:06:27
Procrastination....
Definitely what makes it worthwhile.
I need it to avoid other things.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 15, 2013, at 22:26:27
In reply to Re: support and hope, posted by sleepygirl2 on September 15, 2013, at 14:36:25
Posted by Toph on September 16, 2013, at 15:59:13
In reply to Re: What makes Babble worthwhile..., posted by Twinleaf on September 12, 2013, at 22:36:19
Since this is the admin board I know we often focus on rules. What makes Babble worthwile for me TL is it's values. I am not sure if there is a heierarchy of values but these come to mind when I think of PB: respect, support; education, community, privacy and safety.
I'm sure there are more. I would hope that rules are derived from the site's values.
Posted by Twinleaf on September 18, 2013, at 12:33:06
In reply to Re: What makes Babble worthwhile...Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 12, 2013, at 22:36:21
I am disappointed that you did not even offer me the respect of replying to my question. I think it would have been much healthier and sounder to allow our community to develop into something more like a participatory democracy, in which members' preferences have some (not total) importance. Your lack of response forces us to remain more like an autocracy - the dullest, most stressful and least creative kind of group.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 22:52:21
In reply to Re: What makes Babble worthwhile...Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 18, 2013, at 12:33:06
> I am disappointed that you did not even offer me the respect of replying to my question. I think it would have been much healthier and sounder to allow our community to develop into something more like a participatory democracy, in which members' preferences have some (not total) importance. Your lack of response forces us to remain more like an autocracy - the dullest, most stressful and least creative kind of group.
Your preferences are important to me. I guess how creative an autocracy is depends on how creative (and autocratic) the autocrat is.
Would you like more power? Deputies have more power. We also discussed a Community Council before. Would you be interested in either of those roles?
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 6:10:42
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2013, at 22:52:21
In my view, an autocracy, no matter how creative the autocrat, is not as creative or sound as a participatory democracy.
I would like to see a community vote on the different aspects of the blocking policy. If you create guidelines for blocking which are in harmony with the majority opinion, I would be supportive of whatever decision you made in any particular instance, and would not see a need for a Community Council, which might be quite cumbersome in practice.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:53:00
In reply to Re: autocracy » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 6:10:42
> In my view, an autocracy, no matter how creative the autocrat, is not as creative or sound as a participatory democracy.
>
> I would like to see a community vote on the different aspects of the blocking policy. If you create guidelines for blocking which are in harmony with the majority opinion, I would be supportive of whatever decision you made in any particular instance, and would not see a need for a Community Council, which might be quite cumbersome in practice.I don't foresee asking the community to vote on the blocking policy. Given that, would you see a need for a Community Council? One downside of participatory democracy is it can be cumbersome.
Bob
Posted by Moishe Pipik on September 19, 2013, at 11:16:09
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:53:00
Bob's gonna give us all copies of "Robert's Rules of Order". Then, we can all be on the same page, mental masturbation-wise.
Posted by Twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 12:46:50
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 10:53:00
May I ask why you do not want the community's input on an issue of such central importance?
The history of sharing leadership with you -i.e. the deputies - has been unexpectedly negative, and I fear that a Community Council would encounter similiar difficulties. I don't think one is needed. In my view, community input and support for your general way of administrating is all that is needed. At the moment, this site is run by a blocking policy which has very little (perhaps no) community support. This is a continuing stress which no-one needs, and which weakens the sense of community solidarity. I think you would find that working out an acceptable blocking policy would be extremely helpful - to both you and us.
As a successful example, you just recently asked for community input about medication references. To me, this is the kind of action on your part which strengthens the community, and enhances the experience of individual posters.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:25:54
In reply to Re: autocracy » Dr. Bob, posted by Twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 12:46:50
> May I ask why you do not want the community's input on an issue of such central importance?
I value the community's input. It's been posted here, and I've appreciated it.
> The history of sharing leadership with you -i.e. the deputies - has been unexpectedly negative, and I fear that a Community Council would encounter similiar difficulties. I don't think one is needed.
I agree, sharing leadership could be difficult. If I don't need to, that's OK, I can continue to lead by myself.
Bob
Posted by twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 23:16:11
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2013, at 21:25:54
It sounds like you do want to run Babble as an autocracy. I'd like to return this exchange to its original message, which you have not addressed, and whose meaning you have altered once again. This was that I hope you will consider the advantages of a limited participatory democracy, which would involve finding out by vote what kind of blocking policy the community would be happiest to have.
Posted by Willful on September 20, 2013, at 12:47:45
In reply to Re: autocracy » Dr. Bob, posted by twinleaf on September 19, 2013, at 23:16:11
I don't think it's possible for Bob to do what you're asking Twinleaf, although I understand why you feel that a vote would yield a definitive answer about participant opinion.
I do think a vote would be divisive and not helpful on matter that are as crucial to the running of a message board as blocking and other core matters of right and wrong, which I think must ultimately be in the domain of the person responsible for the board-- who is Bob. None of us bear this responsiblity and therfore none of us really are in the right position to make the ultimate decisions.
But a vote on these matters would I think inflame everyone here-- and if I"m correct that it is in Bob's perview to make these decisions-- would only lead to frustration, disappointment and a sense of impotence on the part of other participants. It's true we don't have the role of making ultimate decisions-- but I think Bob has shown himself to be open to our opinion on other, less core, and less sensitive matters. I hope we will find him open on other matters if they anyone raises them.
I suppose you can say this is an autocracy-- but maybe we haven't tested the limits of our potential participation--
Willful
Posted by Twinleaf on September 20, 2013, at 13:57:29
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Willful on September 20, 2013, at 12:47:45
Well, you are probably right. I had in mind a general kind of vote, which would still involve a lot of flexibility and choice for Bob. Even if the vote did not go exactly my way, I would be glad we had had one, and don't think I would have trouble going along with the views of the majority. But I haven't noticed anyone agreeing with me, so I guess it's a lost cause...
Posted by Moishe Pipik on September 20, 2013, at 14:14:26
In reply to Re: autocracy » Willful, posted by Twinleaf on September 20, 2013, at 13:57:29
Posted by 10derheart on September 20, 2013, at 15:22:30
In reply to Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic (nm), posted by Moishe Pipik on September 20, 2013, at 14:14:26
Well, the Titanic sank 2 hours and 40 minutes from impact.
Babble seems to have weathered multiple impacts, over more than a decade, without sinking.
Posted by Moishe Pipik on September 20, 2013, at 17:16:13
In reply to Re: Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic » Moishe Pipik, posted by 10derheart on September 20, 2013, at 15:22:30
> Babble seems to have weathered multiple impacts, over more than a decade, without sinking.
If mere existence is your criteria, then that would be true. But this site is truly moribund, and has been for several years. It is certainly not anything even remotely resembling a robust online community.
While it might be unfortunate that it isn't of much help to many people, the deadness is a fact, and I don't think it'll ever be lively again.
Posted by Willful on September 20, 2013, at 18:35:53
In reply to Re: Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic » 10derheart, posted by Moishe Pipik on September 20, 2013, at 17:16:13
as Mark Twain said, news of my death is greatly exaggerated.
Perhaps the site is dead to you, Moshe, and never will be lively again, but some of us have an interest in it, and to us, it has not only life, but value.
Willful
Posted by sigismund on September 20, 2013, at 19:13:02
In reply to Re: Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic » 10derheart, posted by Moishe Pipik on September 20, 2013, at 17:16:13
I would not be alone in sometimes wanting to come here and tell everyone how bad it is and how bad they are. But I tell myself that the medium here is at least partly responsible for the difficulties, that mixed feelings are understandable, that there are different (national too) ways of thinking that can easily lead to conflict and such. Bob is trying something new. It has not been wonderful here for a long time and that says something about how good it was for quite a while. I feel I know people here well, even when/if we don't say much these days. It has had the feel of a stand off for quite a while, but it was good enough for me for that to be OK enough for now.
Posted by sigismund on September 20, 2013, at 19:20:28
In reply to Re: autocracy » Willful, posted by Twinleaf on September 20, 2013, at 13:57:29
You were unfortunate in getting caught up in the tail end of those formula blocks, more inappropriate in your case because of the absence of malice in your posts.
I am not really in favour of a vote. It was a pity, I thought, to see the formula again. Blocks should be for hurt maliciously delivered. The trouble here is that our history has involved quite a lot of hurt and we have to live with that. I mean the way sometimes we have hurt each other, sometimes based on misunderstandings and other times out of (what one suspects might be) clear eyed dislike for another's way of thinking. Which makes things difficult.
Posted by Phillipa on September 20, 2013, at 20:02:57
In reply to Re: autocracy » Twinleaf, posted by sigismund on September 20, 2013, at 19:20:28
For me it's been rather repetitive and boring for along time now. I remember all the joking around that used to take place. Now seems to me to be disagreements? Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:54:39
In reply to Re: autocracy, posted by Phillipa on September 20, 2013, at 20:02:57
> I suppose you can say this is an autocracy-- but maybe we haven't tested the limits of our potential participation--
>
> WillfulThanks for keeping this from being The Hsiung-Twinleaf debate. :-)
--
> this site is truly moribund, and has been for several years. It is certainly not anything even remotely resembling a robust online community.
>
> While it might be unfortunate that it isn't of much help to many people, the deadness is a fact, and I don't think it'll ever be lively again.
>
> Moishe Pipik> For me it's been rather repetitive and boring for along time now. I remember all the joking around that used to take place. Now seems to me to be disagreements?
>
> PhillipaMaybe one reason Babble hasn't sunk is that it's not considered unsinkable. I'm thankful for passengers on the lookout for problems.
--
> some of us have an interest in [the site], and to us, it has not only life, but value.
>
> Willful> Well, the Titanic sank 2 hours and 40 minutes from impact.
>
> Babble seems to have weathered multiple impacts, over more than a decade, without sinking.
>
> 10derheartNow, how are we to recognize Nature's most excellent vessels? Whatever does not sink them makes them stronger.
I think Babble has been a most excellent vessel.
--
> Blocks should be for hurt maliciously delivered.
Maybe malice should be sufficient, but I don't know if it should be necessary. Have you seen the thread Alex started on the tragedy of the commons?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20130914/msgs/1050922.html
> The trouble here is that our history has involved quite a lot of hurt and we have to live with that. I mean the way sometimes we have hurt each other, sometimes based on misunderstandings and other times out of (what one suspects might be) clear eyed dislike for another's way of thinking. Which makes things difficult.
>
> sigismundHow do you see past hurt as making things difficult here? It does of course in lots of other contexts.
Bob
Posted by sigismund on September 21, 2013, at 17:12:04
In reply to Re: the Titanic, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:54:39
>How do you see past hurt as making things difficult here?
Well, I can recall a local war breaking out here which took off very quickly because there was a history........ We know each other. Eventually we will all die off. Which reminds me of my brother saying to my mother 'We will both die this year' and she replied 'Speak for yourself', and she was right (but not by long).
It's just a quarrelsome species. That astronaut who went to the moon came back feeling that he would never again resent the presence of others, this noisy quarrelsome funny species. Once the oxycodone kicks in I find myself feeling philosophical and generous. Authorised, prescribed, legal, excused.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2013, at 1:44:36
In reply to Re: the Titanic, posted by Dr. Bob on September 21, 2013, at 3:54:39
> > I suppose you can say this is an autocracy-- but maybe we haven't tested the limits of our potential participation--
I was reading the following and it reminded me of stuff Willful has been posting on this thread:
(I posted this to social, too, but with typo's)
The author is considering traditional community groups who are trying to co-ordinate their action towards sustainably using a common resource. Water for irrigation or whatever. There might be a worthwhile analogy between that kind of case and the kind of case where Babble is a community group of people who are trying to co-ordinate their action towards sustainability where people provide support and education to each other. Problems arise... In how much communities of people can successfully co-ordinate their actions to this end... Or how much a few people will free-ride... Threaten or undermine this process in some way... Such that there needs to be external governmental control to impose sanctions for behaviour that threatens to undermine the common good.
The situation is complicated in a way because Bob isn't entirely coming from outside. The author is highly critical of an imposition of authority from outside (e.g., US engineers coming in and trying to solve irrigation problems in India where they lack fundamental understanding of local ecological conditions). Bob isn't an outsider in that sense. He does have local knowledge of the norms and customs here. Indeed... He has played a significant part (as a founding member, if you like) in the local norms and customs. But in a way he is an outsider since he doesn't participate as we do.
Once upon a time...
> The market was seen as the optimal institution for the production and exchange of private goods. For non-private goods, on the other hand, one needed "the" government to impose rules and taxes to force self-interested individuals to contribute necessary resources and refrain from self-seeking activities. Without a hierarchical government to induce compliance, self-seeking citizens and officials would fail to generate efficient levels of public goods, such as peace and security...
> The classic models have been used to view those who are involved in a prisoner's dilemma game or other social dilemmas as always trapped in the situation without capabilities to change the structure themselves... Whether or not the individuals, who are in a situation, have capacities to transform the external variables affecting their own situation varies dramatically from one situation to the next. It is an empirical condition that varies from situation to situation rather than a logical universality.
> When analysts perceive the human beings they model as being trapped inside perverse situations, they then assume that other human beings external to those involved - scholars and public officials - are able to analyze the situation, ascertain why counterproductive outcomes are reached, and posit what changes in the rules-in-use will enable participants to improve outcomes. Then, external officials are expected to impose an optimal set of rules on those individuals involved. It is assumed that the momentum for change must come from outside the situation rather than from the self-reflection and creativity of those within a situation to restructure their own patterns of interaction.
> collective action theory has paid more attention to payoff functions than to how individuals build trust that others are reciprocators of costly cooperative efforts. Empirical studies, however, confirm the important role of trust in overcoming social dilemmas... the updated theoretical assumptions of learning and norm-adopting individuals can be used as the foundation for understanding how individuals may gain increase levels of trust in others, leading to more cooperation and higher benefits with feedback mechanisms that reinforce positive or negative learning. Thus, it is not only that individuals adopt norms but also that the structure of the situation generates sufficient information about the likely behaviour of others to be trustworthy reciprocators who will bear their share of the costs in overcoming a dilemma. Thus, in some contexts, one can move beyond the presumpton that rational individuals are helpless in overcoming social dilemma situations.
> Asserting that context makes a difference in building or destroying trust and reciprocity is not a sufficient theoretical answer to how and why individuals sometimes solve and sometimes fail to solve dilemmas... The following attributes of microsituations affect the level of cooperation that participants achieve in social dilemma settings (including both public goods and common-pool resource dilemmas).
(me paraphrasing now:)
- Communication between participants
- Reputation of participants is known
- Higher return on co-operation
- Easy to opt out (so can opt out if one starts to feel like one is being taken for a sucker and others are less likely to take advantage)
- Longer time horizon (people plan on sticking around rather than dropping in then out again)> - Agreed upon sanctioning capabilities. While external sanctions or imposed sanctioning systems may reduce cooperation, when participants themselves agree to a sanctioning system they frequently do not need to use sanctions at high volume, and net benefits can be improved substantialy.
So....
The moral...
A moral... One thing to take might be... That things wouldn't inevitably disintegrate if Bob were to stop with the blocking already... But... We would need to pick up the slack with our norms... But then if we picked up the slack with our norms... Would Bob need to block? Does his blocking prevent or counter our community norms or are they in synch in some way? Is Bob appropriately an insider or does he impose his authority from the outside without sufficient knowledge of local conditions?
I don't know. I have a fever. I'm sick and borderline delirious, I think...
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.