![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 225. Go back in thread:
Posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2013, at 13:59:41
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2013, at 18:09:15
>>The proposal on the table, at least right now, is one Refuge board, not all the boards being refuge boards. The idea is I would moderate it more closely, so it would be a place to flee from nasty free-for-alls.
Then, no, absolutely not interested. That is a penalty or a punishment for preferring civility. How incredibly ironic.
Posted by SLS on July 5, 2013, at 14:45:15
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 5, 2013, at 13:25:25
> > ahaha. can you pinpoint more specifically when-ish in the past you were thinking of moderating it like?
>
> Sorry, I can't. I think the idea is more to create an environment that posters would feel was safe(r) than to go back to a specific point in time.
>
> Bob
It is ironic, but during your period of close moderation, people had very few fears of being hurt except for by the rigid sanctions administered by you. People felt safe otherwise. Safety was even provided for Lou Pilder, who posted in a civil manner at that time. There was a great deal more exchange of ideas, information, and support during this time. I can't imagine why you would not be able to exercise sanctions again, albeit to a more moderate degree. I don't think that a black-or-white or all-or-nothing approach towards establishing the level of moderation to be exercised is at all useful. I can't believe you would open a new board dedicated to protect people from a single person who behaves in a way that you have so often deemed to be uncivil. Were it not for the unfettered posting of uncivil content by this singular poster, we would not be having this discussion.Question: What kind of posting behavior would cause you to exercise a posting block?
- Scott
Posted by Toph on July 5, 2013, at 16:36:23
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on July 5, 2013, at 14:45:15
> It is ironic, but during your period of close moderation, people had very few fears of being hurt except for by the rigid sanctions administered by you. People felt safe otherwise...
>I'm afraid the close moderation period was not as rosy as you remember Scott.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040624/msgs/360727.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020725/msgs/114314.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040716/msgs/368437.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050308/msgs/469506.html
And there are countless posts during the past when people said such cruel and hurtful things to each other that I didn't even want to copy them (google blocked if your interested).
I think there will always be fear of uncivil interactions when people have anonimity, when the community consists of members struggling with mental illness, and when there is less than 24-hour supervision. PB has a rich history of Bob and the community struggling to find a healthy balance between tolerance and discipline. You have offered considerable thought and advice about this problem Scott. I used to believe that people leave Babble because of Bob. Instead I think now that some people leave because they get what they need here and move on, while many others leave because we let them down.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 5, 2013, at 17:39:49
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » SLS, posted by Toph on July 5, 2013, at 16:36:23
what is the point of the refugee board?
meds?
or something else?
Posted by SLS on July 5, 2013, at 17:42:10
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » SLS, posted by Toph on July 5, 2013, at 16:36:23
Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
- Scott
Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 5, 2013, at 20:45:00
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2013, at 13:59:41
I don't think it'd have to be a punishment for preferring civility. It'd just be an option. Who knows what it would look like? Maybe everyone would go there because it's working out. We can't know.
Posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2013, at 22:26:22
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » 10derheart, posted by sleepygirl2 on July 5, 2013, at 20:45:00
I know, but I think....with the low traffic here (except for Meds) that another board for any reason doesn't sound wise. Psych is nearly dead, Social on life support...etc. People are creatures of habit. Of course they/we can change, but change for the sake of change usually makes little sense to me. A new board because he can't place the same limits that have essentially been here for years on one poster? Why is Lou allowed to say that I (and DB) am a promoter of hate and an anti-Semite? Why is he exempt, and therefore posts nearly anything he wants, at any time, to anyone?
Wouldn't Lou just avoid that new board? And how would that address the issue? I care a lot more about what he says to others than what he says to me, although it hurts more than you can imagine to be compared to murderers and racists.
I am so lost and all DB does is keep changing the subject or making inaccurate assertions, like that posters don't want Lou here - something only perhaps one person ever said recently (block Lou immediately, etc.) and that I entirely reject. Lou can be here like anyone if he follows the same rules. I want Lou here. I want civility here. Lou can be civil - I have seen it.
I meant...that to me the idea he would create a special place instead of moderating all the existing boards reasonably, according to guidelines already in place and workable makes me feel....like I'm being shuffled off to some padded room for annoying people because his incomprehensible experiments here are more important than allowing all posters to freely read and post on any board they want, knowing certain lines are drawn.
Asking for *all* posters to be restrained from accusing, gross exaggerations and jumping to conclusions seems like hardly a request at all.
My head hurts.
Posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 6:22:32
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Toph, posted by SLS on July 5, 2013, at 17:42:10
> Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
>
>
> - Scott
Jeez, I think you have a lot to be proud of over the years for your supportive contributions to this site Scott.
Posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 8:57:45
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » SLS, posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 6:22:32
> > Thanks for going through the trouble to research and opine on some of the issues we are discussing here. Your post makes me sad and subdued.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> Jeez, I think you have a lot to be proud of over the years for your supportive contributions to this site Scott.Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I was sincere in my sentiments, Toph. I am always interested to know your perspecitives and respect your intellect and insights, even when we disagree.
When I first started posting here in 1999, there was no active moderation - no warnings or posting blocks. Many people look back at this time with a nostalgic fondness as Psycho-Babble's golden age. There were occasional uncivil comments and vitriolic arguments. Peer pressure usually helped to moderate this, though. I remember feeling constrained and stifled by the Psycho-Babble guidelines of civil communication when they first appeared. I was very much against their institution. However, it wasn't very long before I saw the advantages of moderation such that everyone had the opportunity to feel safe and protected from overbearing personalities like mine. I then came to see the emergence of a moderation protocol that managed to crush any feelings of nurturing that Psycho-Babble had provided for. The moderation style created a situation wherein the Administration board became the main attraction of the website and a source of perpetual drama. Interestingly, when active moderation ceased, there was an inertia of sorts that facilitated a continued awareness of civility that helped the community to maintain civil communication. There was some degree of self-moderation of the website forums that persisted for a few years. Unfortunately, in this environment, it only takes one person to post material with impunity that challenges the health of the website. Such a situation can be rectified quite easily though. Since laisez-faire allows for, and effectively promotes, incivility in such people, it seems to me that active moderation is desirable, albeit to a lesser degree than was exercised previously.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on July 6, 2013, at 12:12:38
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 4, 2013, at 18:09:15
Unless, like Room 2 of chat, the refuge board was considered the main board, and this was the place people were directed after registration, I wouldn't much care for the idea.
On the other hand, if Psychology should ever have life after death, I wouldn't mind at all for more strict rules on sensitivity to be applied there. But civility shouldn't be something to expect only some places on Babble.
Posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 12:20:20
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Toph, posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 8:57:45
14 years certainly qualifies you as a seasoned participant. I disagree with your assessment that the hands off periods of moderation caused Babble to deteriorate into the wild west, but I agree that participant moderators was an experiment that didn't seem to work as hoped. I am interested if you could share some insight on this - do you see any correlation between supervision styles you experienced and the decline in participation?
Posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 13:12:48
In reply to Historical perspectives » SLS, posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 12:20:20
> I disagree with your assessment that the hands off periods of moderation caused Babble to deteriorate into the wild west,
You sure do your research!
:-)
> do you see any correlation between supervision styles you experienced and the decline in participation?
I do remember being quite angry at Dr. Bob in the midst of his draconian enforcement of the rules governing civility. My anger emerged as I believed that this paradigm of moderation was responsible for a sharp decline in posting activity. I didn't collect statistics, though, so I don't know for certain that there was such a decline.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 17:04:41
In reply to Re: Historical perspectives » Toph, posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 13:12:48
It would be nice if someone would do empirical research on which variables had what effect on popular usage and uncivil conduct.
I wish I were here in the beginning as you were. I had fun riding the wave at it's peak. Maybe I'll hang around for the rebound or Babble's ultimate demise. Something tells me Bob doesn't want to quit before Grohol does.
Posted by Phillipa on July 6, 2013, at 18:19:23
In reply to Re: Historical perspectives » SLS, posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 17:04:41
I know when I joined back about 8 years ago it was a great place with long threads and joking around as well. So maybe a random reading or archives would document the best of times and worst also. Phillipa
Posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 18:29:17
In reply to Re: Historical perspectives » SLS, posted by Toph on July 6, 2013, at 17:04:41
> Something tells me Bob doesn't want to quit before Grohol does.
Total LOL!
- Scott
Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 6, 2013, at 18:32:28
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » sleepygirl2, posted by 10derheart on July 5, 2013, at 22:26:22
I see. You make good points.
I wouldn't see it as a punishment though, but I can see your point.
Posted by sleepygirl2 on July 6, 2013, at 18:34:39
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2013, at 12:12:38
Regarding psychology board.... Extra moderation makes sense
Posted by sigismund on July 6, 2013, at 23:08:59
In reply to Re: Historical perspectives » Toph, posted by SLS on July 6, 2013, at 13:12:48
>I do remember being quite angry at Dr. Bob in the midst of his draconian enforcement of the rules governing civility. My anger emerged as I believed that this paradigm of moderation was responsible for a sharp decline in posting activity. I didn't collect statistics, though, so I don't know for certain that there was such a decline.
I recall that. But I think that was after many people left with all the acrimony. That was a later attempt. I think.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 15:47:52
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 6, 2013, at 12:12:38
> > one Refuge board, not all the boards being refuge boards.
>
> Then, no, absolutely not interested. That is a penalty or a punishment for preferring civility.
>
> 10derheart> Unless, like Room 2 of chat, the refuge board was considered the main board, and this was the place people were directed after registration, I wouldn't much care for the idea.
>
> DinahWhich board is the main board is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think people are directed to any one board after they register.
How much energy it takes me to battle posters' insistence gives me an idea of how much energy it takes them to battle Lou's insistence.
--
> It is ironic, but during your period of close moderation, people had very few fears of being hurt except for by the rigid sanctions administered by you.
>
> I can't believe you would open a new board dedicated to protect people from a single person
>
> Question: What kind of posting behavior would cause you to exercise a posting block?
>
> - Scott> A new board because he can't place the same limits that have essentially been here for years on one poster?
>
> Wouldn't Lou just avoid that new board? And how would that address the issue? I care a lot more about what he says to others than what he says to me
>
> 10derheartAll posters who cared about what was said to them could choose to join the new board. People who are posting here would be welcome, and others would be welcome, too.
The catch before, which would be the catch again, would be that to make it feel safe(r) for some people, there would need to be sanctions for other people. And my bet is that it wouldn't just be one person who would be sanctioned.
If there's interest in a refuge board, we'd need to discuss what in fact would be sanctioned. What's come up so far:
> what I used to sanction
> posting something that might scare other posters
> nasty free-for-alls--
> the idea ... makes me feel....like I'm being shuffled off to some padded room for annoying people
>
> 10derheartTo me, it sounds like a cushy room free from annoying people A refuge that helps people find strength. Like a nice massage can rejuvenate. I understand the appeal. Some people prefer the spa, others the gym, still others the spa one day, the gym the next. It's nice to have a choice.
--
> On the other hand, if Psychology should ever have life after death, I wouldn't mind at all for more strict rules on sensitivity to be applied there.
>
> DinahSo at this point I count 1 vote for a new Refuge board and 1 for making Psychology a refuge board. Anybody else interested in a refuge board?
--
> many others leave because we let them down.
>
> Toph> Psych is nearly dead, Social on life support...etc.
>
> 10derheartSome people, "old" as well as "new", may feel disappointed that Psych and Social aren't more active. Does it take that much energy to keep posting on Psych and Social? What's the problem?
Let's make a deal. If I invest time and energy to moderate Babble, will you all invest time and energy to keep the boards alive and supportive?
Bob
Posted by SLS on July 7, 2013, at 16:19:39
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 15:47:52
Why not make Psycho-Babble a refuge website?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on July 7, 2013, at 16:34:51
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by SLS on July 7, 2013, at 16:19:39
> Why not make Psycho-Babble a refuge website?
This might not consume that much time and energy if the moderator does not feel the need to read every post. He could rely, to a great degree, on poster notifications as the primary route to be alerted to possible uncivil behavior. He could then read the boards at his leisure to help maintain the integrity of the forums.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 17:12:51
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by SLS on July 7, 2013, at 16:34:51
> This might not consume that much time and energy if the moderator does not feel the need to read every post. He could rely, to a great degree, on poster notifications as the primary route to be alerted to possible uncivil behavior. He could then read the boards at his leisure to help maintain the integrity of the forums.
1. That's what the moderator's been doing. And it seems some posters don't feel safe enough here.
2. The issue isn't the time and energy of the moderator. The moderator has been learning ways to cope and finding the time and energy to persevere.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on July 7, 2013, at 17:18:53
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 17:12:51
Couldn't you be present but do something other than PBC and block people?
Posted by Twinleaf on July 7, 2013, at 17:43:38
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by alexandra_k on July 7, 2013, at 17:18:53
He has been doing that - he's been talking to us. There are just 2-3 PBCs.
Posted by SLS on July 7, 2013, at 18:10:46
In reply to Re: a refuge(e) board, posted by Dr. Bob on July 7, 2013, at 17:12:51
> > This might not consume that much time and energy if the moderator does not feel the need to read every post. He could rely, to a great degree, on poster notifications as the primary route to be alerted to possible uncivil behavior. He could then read the boards at his leisure to help maintain the integrity of the forums.
> 1. That's what the moderator's been doing. And it seems some posters don't feel safe enough here.1. They don't feel safe enough to notify you?
2. They don't feel safe because you don't act to moderate the the posting behaviors of people who submit posts that are explicitly uncivil, despite notifications?
> 2. The issue isn't the time and energy of the moderator. The moderator has been learning ways to cope and finding the time and energy to persevere.
1. I appreciate this.
2. I have to say, though, that you are making things much too difficult for yourself and the posting community. You can begin to relieve yourself of burden by strongly suggesting to <redacted> that he maintain civility in his posts under the auspices of the rules proscribing over-generalization and exaggeration. Other people have suggested additional proscriptions that are being violated by <redacted>. If the posting behaviors you enumerate are not modified by him, then you proceed to block him from posting. The same protocol should be used to moderate my posting and those of everyone else.
* Has it been strongly suggested to you that you not block people from posting?
Something about this whole situation seems odd to me. It is as if you were caught between a rock and a hard place.
Well, anyway... whatever.
- Scott
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.