![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 159 to 183 of 308. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 21:21:40
In reply to Babble Alert - July 20, posted by Violette on July 20, 2010, at 20:55:40
Posted by violette on July 20, 2010, at 21:28:22
In reply to Re: Babble Alert - July 20***** :-) **** :-) (nm) » Violette, posted by fayeroe on July 20, 2010, at 21:21:40
Well I picture Dr. Bob sitting in an office doing a regression analysis of the forum which shows a correlation between the introduction of Facebook and Twitter icons with an increased number of posts....
I wonder if he realizes the increases were probably all on the Administration Board, or did he forget to control for that variable?
Posted by ron1953 on July 20, 2010, at 22:00:58
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by Dr. Bob on July 17, 2010, at 14:44:43
I don't know why Bob bothers to invite and respond to input when it's quite obvious that he doesn't give a crap about the opinions given. In this thread, it's almost unanimous against the point(less) system, yet Bob plows on anyway. I think Bob is VERY uncivil in this regard, yet he's the one who decides what is and what is not civil. This post is not for Bob, who doesn't care, anyway; it's for the rest of you - I can feel your frustration.
Posted by sigismund on July 21, 2010, at 15:30:01
In reply to Re: Point system, posted by ron1953 on July 20, 2010, at 22:00:58
I don't think we expect any different Ron.
It's that psychiatric/therapeutic/willfulness thing, unless it's out of the Economics faculty at Chicago University.
Posted by BayLeaf on July 21, 2010, at 19:31:41
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
How do you control for:
1) subversion - people who hate this idea so much they will rate really unhelpful posts super high, etc. They will SWEAR that post helped them.
2) vendeta - let's say I detest poster Boogerienose. Everything she posts, I plan to rate as low as possible. (And how does I explain negative votes, if that's required within civility guidlines?)
3) moodiness - so, what if my version of bipolar has angry mania. I spend 3 days saying every post sucks. Or my Borderline PD causes such highs and lows, my opinion changes thoughout the day. I HATE that post. I LOVE that post.
How useful will any of that feed be to the poster or the community? How much more time to you plan of spending here ferreting through all these messes???
Bob, this is the worst new plan for Babblers recovery. It has too much potential to cause pain, rather than be supportive and helpful.
Posted by sigismund on July 21, 2010, at 20:13:55
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on July 21, 2010, at 19:31:41
>Bob, this is the worst new plan for Babblers recovery. It has too much potential to cause pain, rather than be supportive and helpful.
The technological fix, rewards, punishments, incentivation, enhancement, moving forward together etc
Posted by fayeroe on July 21, 2010, at 21:09:50
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience, posted by sigismund on July 21, 2010, at 20:13:55
> >Bob, this is the worst new plan for Babblers recovery. It has too much potential to cause pain, rather than be supportive and helpful.
>
> The technological fix, rewards, punishments, incentivation, enhancement, moving forward together etcMakes me want to "refudiate" it.
Posted by sigismund on July 21, 2010, at 21:32:03
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience » sigismund, posted by fayeroe on July 21, 2010, at 21:09:50
Tough love, stakeholders....there's heaps of this kind of stuff, floating round the anglosphere, especially.
(That Australian who founded Wikileaks was asked what he thought about living in Australia and he said 'It's fine, as long as you are aware that you live in a suburb of Anglo-Saxonia.')
Posted by fayeroe on July 21, 2010, at 21:37:36
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience » fayeroe, posted by sigismund on July 21, 2010, at 21:32:03
Posted by Justherself54 on July 21, 2010, at 21:40:26
In reply to Re: pragmatic experience » sigismund, posted by fayeroe on July 21, 2010, at 21:09:50
I'm quite sure Dr. Bob is going to go ahead with the rating system. We lost good people due to the Facebook/Twitter fiasco. How many people will leave if this goes through?
What would happen if everyone but one or two opted out?
This just feels so wrong.
Posted by Toph on July 22, 2010, at 9:28:12
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Justherself54 on July 21, 2010, at 21:40:26
Sometimes Bob acts like those insecure people who constantly test those who care about them - abusing, belittling, annoying them - just to have proof that they care by their hanging around.
Posted by ron1953 on July 22, 2010, at 9:42:38
In reply to Re: Ratings » Justherself54, posted by Toph on July 22, 2010, at 9:28:12
> Sometimes Bob acts like those insecure people who constantly test those who care about them - abusing, belittling, annoying them - just to have proof that they care by their hanging around.
I think that's shown rather clearly by the little handful of loyal, long-term hangers-on who have, in effect, and with Bob's assistance, become the essence of what PB is today; a tidy little package that has no use whatsoever for anyone other than that core group.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by ron1953 on July 22, 2010, at 9:42:38
Now, if Dr. Bob really wants to give points, it might be a good idea to limit posting on the Admin board to those who have posted 20 on topic and civil posts on boards other than Admin in the past month. Perhaps he could even make that to include at least five civil responses to people outside their core group.
Admin could be limited to just those people who actively use Babble. It would seem that posting on Admin would be quite an incentive, since that seems to be one of the more lively boards.
There would be no judgment involved. Just a computer count of posts, with deductions for posts deemed uncivil and posts that are administrative in nature but posted on other boards.
Posted by Deneb on July 22, 2010, at 15:13:31
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
That's a great idea Dinah!
Ooooh, there is so much potential in this!
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 15:17:47
In reply to Re: Ratings, posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 15:02:51
I hope my invitation to this party gets lost in the mail.
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 16:51:49
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 15:17:47
Would you prefer that?
I don't think I've ever seen you posting on Admin when you didn't also post supportively on other boards. You were the only one who answered me on Psychology recently and I thank you for it. You've often been very supportive to me, and I know you to be supportive to others.
I wouldn't think it would be a particularly onerous task to talk to other Babblers rather than just Bob?
Posted by Dinah on July 22, 2010, at 16:57:35
In reply to Re: Ratings » Dinah, posted by Deneb on July 22, 2010, at 15:13:31
:)
It's funny. Whether people hate him or love him or anything in between, interacting with or talking about him seems to be quite appealing to many people. Even those who otherwise don't "Babble". For years even.
He certainly draws a lot of attention.
That kind of intensity on either side shows a fair amount of feeling. What is it they say about hate and love?
Odd really. I wonder if part of the issue is that he rarely brings an equal intensity to the table?
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 18:12:06
In reply to Re: Point system » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 20, 2010, at 13:10:34
Friends,
I have been reading some of this with interest. You see, there are other ways to structure the administration of a community and I appreciate reading the posts here. In particular, but not limited to Denb's post for innitiaing this discussion.
You see, I have a great background in administration and have studied such in the graduste level and the post-graduate level. I also have a great knowledge of the history of adminstrative models from the ancient Greeks to the Obama administration.
Bur the overiding concern of mine here is to offer an administratin that could IMO have the potential to save lives which would take precedence to all other criteria.
Now could I do that here? I not only thinnk that I could, but I am also willing to accept any challenge to thta I could do it.
Here is how it could be done.
Let's suppose we have a hypothetical discussion between the hypothetical posters, Helen Weilz, Seymore Hienz and Ivan Skidyvan.
Ley's look into the discussion:
Helen Weilz:
You know Ivan, I have been thinking that you are (redacted) for sky diving.
Seymore Hienz:
Hey Helen, it's a cool thing.
Ivan Skidyvan:
Listen Helen, I do not appreciate your (redacted} and you can take a (redacted).
Helen Weilz:
(redacted)
Now here we have some breaches in the aspects of harmony. In my system, each poster would start off with 1500 points and deputies could deduct a determined amount of points from their rating. A word that could be liste din the dictionary ar usually vulger could have , let's say, 50 points deducted from their rating. A put down could be 200 points deducted amd so on. As to what happens to these posters astheiir rating goes down is axplaine dby me in the following links that I have posted here years ago.
Here are two links to one post in each thread and there are other posts by me concerningthis.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/894713.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/817785.html
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 18:48:28
In reply to Lou's response- hlnwez, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 18:12:06
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 19:05:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response- 'who will do the counting?' (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 18:48:28
fayeroe,
Good question. I think that people in the community that want to do so could spend an hour a day or so and keep soem type of system of record for a particula rposter regardless of the board that the post appears. This means that each ember has one other member assigned to look at all of the posts for that member. This could be rotated, lets say, weekly.
Now hypothetically some posters could need more than one other member assigned to evaluate their posts.
The deductions in my system could be seen after the poster's name in each post after each deduction. Wha do you think?
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 20:22:23
In reply to Lou's response- gudquez » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 19:05:32
Lou, what if one of the members wasn't honest because, 1. they were angry
2. they were hurt
3. they were lazy.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 21:06:33
In reply to Re: Lou's response- gudquez » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 20:22:23
> Lou, what if one of the members wasn't honest because, 1. they were angry
> 2. they were hurt
> 3. they were lazy.
>
> fayeroe,
Another good point. You see many years ago I also posted that rules are to be well-defined and equally applied.
So in my suggested community, the rules would be well-defined and applied equally so that the deductions of points from a person's rating could have a narrow degree of interpretation, being that the rule is well-defined.
There are 3 aspects to the people applying the deductions.
One is if they fail to apply the deduction
Another is if they apply the deduction without merit to the rule in question as in being malicious
and the other is the applying of the rule in error.
now there could be in place an oversight of any of those three cases by an {ombudsman}. The ombudsman could be someone that is not a member and could step in when one of the three cases happens. This person could be an interested researcher doing research on forums such as this or perhaps a university prof. in the field related to such.
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on July 22, 2010, at 21:36:03
In reply to Lou's response- ombudzmun » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2010, at 21:06:33
Lou, I applaud your caring enough to work on something for Babble.
However, I do not think that anything will change here as long as there is a possibility of another speech, another book or another website for posts from here.
Texans could say "the members don't have a dog in this fight". And we don't. We're just train-wreck watchers.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 22, 2010, at 23:45:06
In reply to Re: sorry if my post » Dr. Bob, posted by nadezda on July 20, 2010, at 13:08:13
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 23, 2010, at 0:43:14
In reply to Re: Ratings » Justherself54, posted by Toph on July 22, 2010, at 9:28:12
> he doesn't give a crap about the opinions given.
>
> ron1953> Sometimes Bob acts like those insecure people who constantly test those who care about them - abusing, belittling, annoying them - just to have proof that they care by their hanging around.
>
> TophPlease don't post anything that could lead others (including me) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain members of this community and that members of this community help you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express yourself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
ron1953:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 95 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 1.13 rounded = 1 weekToph:
duration of previous block: 1 week
period of time since previous block: 75 weeks
severity: 2 (default) + 1 (uncivil toward particular individual) = 3
block length = 1.23 rounded = 1 week
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.