![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 59. Go back in thread:
Posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
In reply to moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
Somehow I don't think ongoing participant moderators is a good idea. Just have a hunch it would create more conflict, and interfere with relationships among participants.
If Dr. Bob needs to add more moderators, it should be non-participants.
Posted by katekite on August 12, 2002, at 15:49:26
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
I can't get through all the messages every day, although I admit my purpose is to think and digest not to moderate, maybe I take a lot longer.
Yet, I simply don't see how a single person with any other job or committment can expect to do a reasonable job at moderating the whole site on a daily basis.
I'm amazed Dr. Bob can do as comprehensive a job as he does, but think as the site continues to grow he will be forced to moderate some other way (programs that scan for bad words? multiple other people?).
Kate
Posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
In reply to moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by Dr. Bob on August 8, 2002, at 8:31:32
Great discussion, even from those who disagree.
Another good reason for participant-moderators, in my opinion, is the increasing number and diversity of boards. While I'm very interested in psycho-psycho babble, for instance (and delighted that Dinah suggested it in the first place), I'm truly worn out when it comes to the meds board and have little time or interest to follow several of the other boards.
I think that any seasoned adult participant who accepts the responsibility of moderation quickly learns to balance personal allegiances with the need to maintain civility (participant safety and coherence, if you will). While it might be momentarily uncomfortable to ask an old friend to "please be civil," that very familiarity helps with recognizing and identifying incivility in the first place.
If this were my board, I would probably replace "please be civil" with "please be kind," which for me speaks more broadly and accurately to the needs of those of us with mental and emotional illnesses. So often our unkindness to others is an acting out of our own pain, and if we focus not so much on civility but on simply being kind to one another (and ourselves), perhaps we'd remember more often why it is we are here and there would be fewer conflicts.
In the end, I think it's a matter of trust. I admit that I trust any of probably two dozen regular participants here to serve as moderators, and I would gladly submit to their instructions and guidance. Whatever problems we may experience over time, I have met and enjoyed interactions with many truly great, well informed, kind and generous people on these boards. It is this experience borne out over time that has built my faith in the ability of participants to serve as safe and trustworthy moderators.
As always, thank you for considering my thoughts about this and for respecting our occasional differences of opinion.
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by mair on August 28, 2002, at 20:07:33
In reply to Re: Participant Moderators and New Boards, posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
Posted by Phil on August 29, 2002, at 6:10:51
In reply to Re: Participant Moderators and New Boards, posted by Mark H. on August 28, 2002, at 19:55:27
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2002, at 22:11:24
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis « Mark H., posted by .tabi.T.ha. on August 8, 2002, at 15:28:03
> > Many of us have said this before, but I would like to see the boards moderated on an on-going basis by a group of well-seasoned participants
> >
> > The boards have grown over the last two years to the point that the next phase of good management requires delegation. I believe that the only way for you to retain meaningful control overall is to delegate a majority of control of the day-to-day operations to participants.
> >
> > Mark H.I do agree that some sort of delegation will be necessary, at least if there's going to be continued growth. And there are advantages to having participants moderate. But I'm afraid they might find it to be a burden or to interfere with asking for and receiving support themselves.
Dinah, how did it go for you? What do you think?
> I'm afraid I have just the opposite viewpoint. I feel safer here because there is an independent monitor who isn't one of "us". It allows an objectivity that just wouldn't be available with peer moderation.
> there are times when I can see a PBC coming from Dr. Bob, but I might understand the frustration or whatever behind the post. So I can stand back and let Dr. Bob deliver the PBC, while I can be supportive.
>
> Dinah> Somehow I don't think ongoing participant moderators is a good idea. Just have a hunch it would create more conflict, and interfere with relationships among participants.
>
> If Dr. Bob needs to add more moderators, it should be non-participants.
>
> tabi.T.haAnd of course there are advantages to having "non-participants" moderate, too. The problem is finding "non-participants" who are willing and able...
> I do think, however, that since Dr. Bob is frequently off board for a couple of days at a time, that he should give a few people who are on board more frequently the ability to PBC or block really egregious examples of civility violations
>
> DinahThat could be one step in the delegation direction, having an on-going "deputy" or two. In general or for specific boards...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2002, at 22:11:24
> I do agree that some sort of delegation will be necessary, at least if there's going to be continued growth. And there are advantages to having participants moderate. But I'm afraid they might find it to be a burden or to interfere with asking for and receiving support themselves.
>
> Dinah, how did it go for you? What do you think?
>
Hmm. It wasn't a problem short term, especially as no thorny situations came up, but it didn't change my overall view of participant moderators.I usually read most of the posts on all of the boards except the meds board, so that wasn't too much of a burden. But it sure was nice last night to go back to reading just the posts that caught my attention. It also was nice to go to sleep last night and to be able to go out this morning without having to worry that something was going to blow up while I was away. So yes, there is a burden involved. In fact Dr. Bob, I don't know how you do it long-term.
And yes, it did make me hesitate before asking for support. It would feel kind of weird to say on one board that I was having a total meltdown while expecting people to have faith in my administrative interventions somewhere else. More than asking for support though, it made it difficult to share opinions, especially on volatile threads. I had the feeling that if I expressed an opinion that went to one or the other side of the debate, that people would begin to wonder if my interventions had a bias.
And Tabitha is right, a participant moderator would have trouble maintaining supportive relationships on the board when things got unpleasant, as they do sometimes, and the moderator took an unpopular position. Of course, I've also found that to be true in my experience as a poster too. Those dear friends who can separate me from my occasionally unpopular opinions are greatly treasured.
So my opinion of participant moderators? I think it's impossible. I think that moderators would eventually become more and more moderators and less and less participants. Of course that might be okay for some people, and there might be posters who would rather be involved in an administrative capacity. Perhaps that would solve the problem.
I also think that there are many forums where participant moderators work very well, but I am wondering if those are closed forums where membership is limited to approved members....
Just my meandering thoughts. I'm sure there are more floating around somewhere in my mind.
I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.
You know Dr. Bob, I understand that you have an almost overwhelming task here, and I think it's great that you're willing to delegate. Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you. Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours. I'm sure there are lots of ideas that could help you out while maintaining the unique character of Babble, which is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?
Posted by mair on September 9, 2002, at 22:06:09
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
I'm not in any position to challenge Dinah's impressions of why using posters as moderators is a bad idea. She draws on personal experience. However, I don't think that the relative calm of the Board in Bob's absence can be dismissed simply as the result of there being no controversial threads. I think there were several threads that could have turned sour and didn't largely because of her gentle intervention.
I don't mean this as a criticism of Dr. Bob, but I think people on this Board are more apt to want to spare a poster/moderator alot of aggravation. We tend to take care of one another better than we do of Bob, and I think are sensitive to the difficulties facing a poster/moderator. Because Bob is not strictly one of "us," he seems to become a lightening rod for criticism about the Board. A poster/moderator is only a surrogate and is not in any position to act on the criticism of others. Also for reasons that are not altogether clear to me, Bob making the plea "I'm doing the best I can" holds no where near the same weight as a similar plea from a poster/moderator.
I can appreciate that it may be too much of a burden to impose on a poster to act as moderator. However I really dislike the idea of having other outside moderators. It seems to me that many of the criticisms lodged before involve situations where some people thought that statements Bob found objectionable were inappropriately taken out of context. It would be very difficult for an assisting outside moderator to have the same "feel" for the Board as does Bob or the more active posters.
My preference would be that Bob find a way to continue to incorporate posters as moderators, maybe not for such a long period of time or for as long as Dinah's recent term and not necessarily to the exclusion of Bob. The Board seemed to be in excellent hands both when Dinah acted as moderator and also when Mark stepped in - I think there are a lot of positives to using posters in this manner.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
In reply to Re: moderating on an on-going basis » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on September 9, 2002, at 10:59:24
> I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.
> Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours.
OK, let's say a deputy administrator will have the *option* of administrating, but won't be at all *obligated* to do so. And let's start with you and (if he's interested) Mark H., since you're the ones who have experience filling in for me. I don't know about "emergency", but how about if we consider a situation "pressing" if it's getting worse, ie, if the problem isn't just one post?
> Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you.
More ideas are of course welcome, and people are always free to email me about posts. It's fine to post something about them, too, but in that case extra care needs to be taken to be civil.
> Babble ... is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?
Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised? :-)
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2002, at 22:50:03
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
> Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised? :-)
>
> BobHmm. perhaps we can consider it a working hypothesis, that can be revised as needed? In other words, I'm willing to try it, but won't be offended or upset if it doesn't work out as you had hoped.
Dinah
Posted by ~~Alii~~ on September 11, 2002, at 4:46:22
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
>>>>I still think it would be a good thing though to have deputies for emergency situations, although you would have to clarify what an emergency was. And I would be happy to help out with the housekeeping tasks like removing multiple posts wherever I saw them.<<<<---Dinah
>>>>Maybe the participant deputies could have limited powers, like please be carefuls and blocked until Dr. Bob has a chance to look at this, so that things would be flagged for you, but the decision making responsibility would be yours.<<<<---Dinah>>>>OK, let's say a deputy administrator will have the *option* of administrating, but won't be at all *obligated* to do so. And let's start with you and (if he's interested) Mark H., since you're the ones who have experience filling in for me. I don't know about "emergency", but how about if we consider a situation "pressing" if it's getting worse, ie, if the problem isn't just one post?<<<<---Doc. B.
>>>>Perhaps there could be further bouncing around of ideas to help. For example, maybe you could encourage people to post links to objectionable posts to the admin board or email them to you.<<<<---Dinah
>>>>More ideas are of course welcome, and people are always free to email me about posts. It's fine to post something about them, too, but in that case extra care needs to be taken to be civil.<<<<---Doc. B.
>>>> Babble ... is partly based on having a non-participant moderator. Isn't that what your studies are based on? That this is a site that is different than the other types of boards?<<<<--Dinah
>>>> Well, that was the hypothesis. Maybe it needs to be revised?<<<<---Doc. B.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From this post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020908/msgs/30129.html>>>>...this is not a liberal Democrat rant, sorry Dinah if this sounds uncivil. Maybe everything looks blue from outside the country.<<<<---Medusa
I find this troubling that posters are already apologizing to the deputy about their words. This site is becomming more and more restrictive in what kind of 'support' can be offered. Perhaps I'm just feeling as if we are entering into a police state where soon our thoughts will be please be civiled. No paranoia just sadness at the direction over the past several months that PB and its many offshoots have taken.
~~A disappointed and saddened Alii
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 7:37:31
In reply to Re: deputy administrators » Dr. Bob, posted by ~~Alii~~ on September 11, 2002, at 4:46:22
Funny that Alii should mention that post. I just told Medusa that there was no reason to apologize to me for what she said.
Dr. Bob may clarify, but I don't envision the deputy duties to include making close calls, or influencing the tone of the site, anything like that.
I see it more as a way to help him by doing routine housekeeping tasks, and to intervene where there is an obvious violation of civility policy that has the chance of escalating before Dr. Bob does his check of the boards. It's more of a preventative measure to keep things from getting out of hand, and to reduce the number of PBC's resulting from responses to posts that violate the civility policy. I wouldn't intervene nearly as often as I did as a fill-in for Dr. Bob, for example.
Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify this point? Do I have the job description right?
Dinah
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 8:10:15
In reply to Re: deputy administrators - Dr. Bob and all, posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 7:37:31
I changed my registration to include my email, so if anyone sees a civility problem, they can email me, as well as Dr. Bob, and that way, the chances of it being dealt with expeditiously are improved.
Dinah
Posted by ~Alii~ on September 11, 2002, at 17:29:11
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
...change in how this board is being run.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the FAQ: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#subsWhat if you're not online?
If I anticipate not being able to monitor these boards as closely as usual, I may ask another member of the community to stand in for me. His or her main role would be to try to maintain an atmosphere of civility - - keeping an eye on what's going on (checking the boards at least every other day) and (if necessary):
1. posting requests to be civil
2. blocking posters who continue not to be after one warning
3. deleting grossly inappropriate posts.He or she wouldn't have access to registration information (such as email addressses); blocking is done by posting name. He or she would post under his or her usual name and not pretend to be me. He or she would also post an email address in order to be reachable directly.
He or she might not have the time or be familiar enough with the site to respond to technical questions. Housekeeping tasks like deleting duplicate posts might also need to wait until I'm back.
FYI, I have mixed feelings about this. My philosophy has been to take the responsibility (and the heat) for administrative issues myself. But I think this might be better overall for the community. Let's see how it goes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Bob,
Perhaps this section of the FAQ needs updating now that you are delegating *optional* (your emphasis) administrative powers to deputy posters.
~~Alii
Posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:39:01
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by Dr. Bob on September 10, 2002, at 20:17:04
I had the impression that several people were trying to be vigilent about 'uncivil' posters while Dr. Bob was away- and in all probability attempting to make Dinah's job easier. That's something we can continue to do here on admin, I believe Phil just did it yesterday. I agree with Mair that we also responded to Dinah's 'gentle' warnings, and I see that as a true positive, versus the 'acting out' that some do to Dr. Bob. Anyway, I'm not one to argue :-)- just making some observations. take care, judy
Posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:43:14
In reply to Re: deputy administrators, posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:39:01
I also don't think it's fair that you have to be responsible for too much- I know you have issues that need to be heard and certainly deserve the support that the rest of us get. take care, judy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 11, 2002, at 20:37:07
In reply to I think the FAQ needs updating with this latest... » Dr. Bob, posted by ~Alii~ on September 11, 2002, at 17:29:11
> I don't envision the deputy duties to include making close calls, or influencing the tone of the site, anything like that.
>
> I see it more as a way to help him by doing routine housekeeping tasks, and to intervene where there is an obvious violation of civility policy that has the chance of escalating before Dr. Bob does his check of the boards. It's more of a preventative measure to keep things from getting out of hand, and to reduce the number of PBC's resulting from responses to posts that violate the civility policy. I wouldn't intervene nearly as often as I did as a fill-in for Dr. Bob, for example.
>
> Dr. Bob, perhaps you could clarify this point? Do I have the job description right?
>
> DinahThat's right. Except that if it's a "pressing" situation, there's more than just a "chance of escalating", there's already been a second problematic post...
----
> I think the FAQ needs updating with this latest
> change in how this board is being run...
>
> ~~AliiI agree, it would, but let's see how this goes for a while first to decide if we even want to keep doing it.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 20:43:21
In reply to P.S. for Dinah, posted by judy1 on September 11, 2002, at 19:43:14
I don't see this as being anywhere near the same level of responsibility as it was filling in for Dr. Bob. He's still around and he'll still be the person in charge.
Don't worry. I like being a poster here too much to let anything interfere with that. I like getting and giving support.
I guess, for one thing, I can see where Dr. Bob would like to be able to have a life. :) And I don't mind helping if I can.
For another thing, I find it quite upsetting when there is a problem on the board that gets out of hand and escalates, especially when it's one of those things where early intervention would prevent a lot. I've noticed that happens when Dr. Bob is away a day or two. I guess my thought is that having a few deputies around, who would be on and off the boards more frequently, would stop a situation from escalating. I guess we'll have to see how well that works in practice, as opposed to theory.
By the way, if you'd ever like to contact me off board, my email address is bullyforyou77 at yahoo.
Dinah
Posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:44:48
In reply to Re: Thanks Judy, posted by Dinah on September 11, 2002, at 20:43:21
...or whatever we will call them. Psycho Babble, as a site, has become more restrictive and we already have people making long intros before they state their opinions so as to (one hopes) avoid a PBC or block. Communication has become cumbersome, more veiled, less direct (even when direct NE uncivil but *MIGHT* be perceived that way), so that a thought becomes a tangle of a little bit of the idea, an apology, pointing out it is not directed at anyone in particular, plus toss in some paranoia because the guidelines aren't that clear anymore...and, voila, an incomprehensible mess(age)!
I agree a few posters get way out on the edge, and need to be dealt with, and I don't have a big investment in who deals with them. However, I am not interested in having a lot of "be careful" and "watch the tone" posts, either, in the name of preventing a problem--no matter who makes them. Except that if Dr. Bob makes them, it's his board and he can do what he wants. It is too reminiscent of the kid who got to "take names" when the teacher left the room, even if just to step out into the hall. Or, always being under the watchful eye of "Mom" or "Dad" who wants to steer everyone away from even the hint of impropriety well before it is even a glimmer in a teenager's eye, so eventually everyone quits talking.
It is as if the goal of the boards is now 'flat affect.' Which, of course, doesn't make sense to me on a board that deals with emotions, a full range of emotions, and emotions that are in response to what others say. The guidelines are so broad now, to be civil is akin to being either supportive or neutral. Anything beyond that, and one risks a block, even if one is only expressing a personal opinion about an IDEA. And I do want to add that blocking for humor added a whole new dimension to the notion of what now constitutes "civility."
Now for my standard disclaimers, that none of this is directed at anyone in particular, and Dinah did a very good job when she filled in for Dr. Bob, and I hope nobody takes any of this personally because it is not meant that way, I am just hoping to express ideas that are against a proposed action and thus not "happy" ideas, but without harmful intent, not trying to make anyone feel put down or ill at ease, not criticizing anyone while at the same time trying to express my opinion about deputy monitor posting police force.
Shar
P.S. Yes, this would decidedly affect one's research outcomes, and if adopted permanently would require a change in hypotheses and lots of explaining etc., OR you could just end Study A the day before the change is effective, and start Study B the day after the change with new hypotheses. I've seen a fair amount of that in my professional life.
Posted by ~Alii~ on September 12, 2002, at 0:55:32
In reply to Decidedly Against Deputy Monitor Posting Police, posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:44:48
Posted by BeardedLady on September 12, 2002, at 7:14:10
In reply to Re: D.A.D.M.P.P. well said and thank you for that (nm) » shar, posted by ~Alii~ on September 12, 2002, at 0:55:32
I think that because Dinah is familiar with each of us and with our posting style, she wouldn't make the same mistakes that Dr. Bob does. I don't buy the idea that it's his board and he can do whatever he wants.
The rules change every moment, and language is so restrictive now that one can't even post a famous line from a movie without being issued a PBC.
I'd rather see a moderator who has a more active role here. Maybe Dr. Bob should defer to Dinah before he issues PBCs or blocks.
beardy
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 8:16:40
In reply to Decidedly Against Deputy Monitor Posting Police, posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:44:48
> I am not interested in having a lot of "be careful" and "watch the tone" posts, either, in the name of preventing a problem--no matter who makes them...
How about we give this a try and see how it goes? Let's say for a month?
Bob
Posted by LLL on September 12, 2002, at 10:01:38
In reply to Decidedly Against Deputy Monitor Posting Police, posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:44:48
Posted by mair on September 13, 2002, at 13:18:01
In reply to Re: Before Deciding, posted by Dr. Bob on September 12, 2002, at 8:16:40
I don't think it's wholly a coincidence that things seem to have heated up here considerably since Bob got back. I can understand Dinah's view that she wouldn't want to monitor this site as a steady diet and Shar's that she doesn't want deputy monitors at all, but I continue to believe that having posters serve a monitors has value.
I'd like to throw out the suggestion that the "deputy" monitors change on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and that they, and not Bob, have primary responsibility for monitoring. My idea is that Bob would defer to the decisions of the monitor on duty unless they asked him to step in or unless perhaps other posters asked him to step in.
I think there are several potential benefits to this plan. First, using a number of people will address Dinah's concerns that the poster/monitor bears the burden of too much responsibility and doesn't really get to ask for support in the same manner as the rest of us. I don't believe the job will look as onerous if you know it's for a more limited period of time. If someone doesn't feel up to monitoring when it's his or her time, they could be passed over for that week and come back into a rotation later.
Also I think my system gives Bob the help he needs without turning one person (Dinah) into his perceived alter ego. I think the idea of a single deputy is a really bad one and will create confusion, potentially, between Bob and his deputy over who should step in when. (this is why I also think the deputy should have the first right to intervene) By spreading the work around to many people, no one person has to be so closely identified with the "job," and many more people, perhaps, will come to feel more of a positive investment in how the site is run.
I think there are many people who are more than capable of serving the same kind of function that Dinah did in Bob's absence. The only requirement should be that the deputies be people who've been posters for awhile. Any number of people fit that bill. Bob has gravitated to Mark and Dinah because they've performed this service before. However they both did a great job even though neither had any prior experience.
Many of the complaints that I've heard about Bob's monitoring involve situations where people felt that he looked at statements made out of context or that he misunderstood the intent of the poster or the likely response of others, or that he simply acted too autocratically. I think these kinds of misunderstandings and complaints would be avoided to a much greater degree with poster/monitors. I also think that people can live with the decisions made by their peers much more easily than they can with those made by a supposedly more impartial person who really isn't at all impartial. I also believe that people will be far more tolerant of monitoring mistakes made by their peers than those made by Bob.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 13, 2002, at 19:45:53
In reply to Re: Before Deciding- Another idea, posted by mair on September 13, 2002, at 13:18:01
> I'd like to throw out the suggestion that the "deputy" monitors change on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and that they, and not Bob, have primary responsibility for monitoring. My idea is that Bob would defer to the decisions of the monitor on duty unless they asked him to step in or unless perhaps other posters asked him to step in.
>
> I think there are several potential benefits to this plan. First, using a number of people will address Dinah's concerns that the poster/monitor bears the burden of too much responsibility and doesn't really get to ask for support in the same manner as the rest of us.
>
> Also I think my system gives Bob the help he needs without turning one person (Dinah) into his perceived alter ego.
>
> I think there are many people who are more than capable of serving the same kind of function that Dinah did in Bob's absence. The only requirement should be that the deputies be people who've been posters for awhile. Any number of people fit that bill. Bob has gravitated to Mark and Dinah because they've performed this service before. However they both did a great job even though neither had any prior experience.I also like the idea of multiple deputy monitors, and we'd have two right now if Mark H. were interested. It was also just to take one step at a time that I thought we could see how it went with those two before opening it up to others.
Do you think it would be better for deputy monitors to rotate taking "shifts" rather than all being "on duty" at the same time? I guess both are ways of limiting how much of a burden it is... But shifts mean schedules and logistics...
As far as primary responsibility, I think there are two related issues, power and accountability. I understand that some of you are unhappy with how much power I have, but I'm the one who's accountable for what happens here. It would be interesting to discuss how that accountability might be shared, but it I bet it would involve lawyers, contracts, etc...
Bob
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.