![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by Jost on October 1, 2006, at 23:34:22
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by 10derHeart on October 1, 2006, at 12:35:32
I was perplexed by the prefect's carriage-- still am to some degree-- but it's in one of the Harry Potter movies. Apparently somewhere the prefects got together and talked.
About what I'm not sure-- but I infer that they may have gone off topic and started talking about other students--unless that was where they talked about other students? or is this my own slightly fevered mis-reading?
Jost
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 0:31:12
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by 10derHeart on October 1, 2006, at 12:35:32
> And I am utterly and completely confused as to the meaning of almost everything anyone has written here.
>
> ??I thought it might help the deputy team and me work together if we met from time to time. That would be hard to do in person, and since we have this new chat function, I thought we'd try using it. So I added a "room" just for us.
Some posters happened to be there when I was working on it and found out about it that way.
Actually there are a total of 3 rooms now: "room 1", "room 2", and "reserved". 1 and 2 are both open. Whether we should keep both of them and, if so, differentiate them further are open, so to speak, questions, and I'll be interested in what you all think.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2006, at 0:44:42
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 0:31:12
I think it might be nice to keep one of the rooms for light hearted distracting chat and use another of the rooms for more serious stuff.
I mean in the sense that if discussion is getting heated and / or triggering (because of subject matter, say) then people in room 1 should have the perogative to ask people if they wouldn't mind taking it to room 2 (for example.
I guess people will tend to initally enter room 1 (by default) and thats why I suggest room 2 for more serious issues.
Is the limit 15 posters all up in Babble chat or 15 posters per room?
Are all the posters in Babble chat listed regardless of room?
Does it say which room babblers are in?
I just mean... When you are in room 1 it would be nice to know who is in room 2 and vice versa.
I don't know what I think about knowing when people are in restricted chat. If people can't login to chat because the 15 person limit is reached (if that is for all chatters regardless of room) then I guess people will figure how many people there are in restricted chat anyway.
I'm still not that happy about restricted chat...
But done done can't be undone etc etc.
Whatever...
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 0:54:18
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2006, at 0:44:42
> I think it might be nice to keep one of the rooms for light hearted distracting chat and use another of the rooms for more serious stuff.
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion...
> Is the limit 15 posters all up in Babble chat or 15 posters per room?
Hmm, good question, I'm not sure.
> Are all the posters in Babble chat listed regardless of room?
>
> Does it say which room babblers are in?
>
> I just mean... When you are in room 1 it would be nice to know who is in room 2 and vice versa.Whenever you're in a room, the other people in that room are listed. And the initial login page lists everyone in the open rooms. I don't think there's a way, at least right now, to find out who's in room 2 if you're in room 1...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2006, at 1:04:52
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused, posted by Dr. Bob on October 2, 2006, at 0:54:18
> > Is the limit 15 posters all up in Babble chat or 15 posters per room?
> Hmm, good question, I'm not sure.
test16 should let you know.
> Whenever you're in a room, the other people in that room are listed. And the initial login page lists everyone in the open rooms. I don't think there's a way, at least right now, to find out who's in room 2 if you're in room 1...Dinah suggested that you could look at the login page and infer that whoever wasn't in your room was in the other open room. I guess one would need to refresh the login page periodically to check whether anyone had logged on since you.
It would be nice if after listing the chatters in your room it listed the chatters in the next room. But since there is a way to find out (and since one could just go take a look) I guess it doesn't really matter.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 2, 2006, at 8:23:15
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on October 2, 2006, at 1:04:52
I looked in on it when there were about seven or so people in chat. The log in page listed who was chatting and had (room 1) or (room 2), or something like that listed after the screen names.
Regarding the restricted chat room, do you think that all Babblers should be able to view and/or participate in administrative meetings? I wasn't involved in the discussion, so I don't know the basis of your concerns.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:05:46
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria » 10derHeart, posted by Jost on October 1, 2006, at 23:34:22
The prefect's carriage (and prefects bathroom) were sort of privileges granted to prefects in Harry Potter. Harry felt left out when Ron and Hermione went to sit in the prefect's carriage, and he had to find other people to sit with. Although he made a new friend in Luna Lovegood. Which is neither here nor there, but was important in plot development.
At any rate, a deputy chat room, the equivilant of a prefect carriage, is not what this is. As gg says, it's more of a conference room. Which is not to say that I approve of Dr. Bob's choices in how to go about this, and think he could have made choices more sensitive to the feelings of others.
I think the two room idea is not necessarily a good one. It's not only confusing, but we've seen the kind of hurt that can arise when people retire there and are less than joyfully welcoming to others that might enter.
Prior experience already would seem to suggest that there should only be one room.
But that's just my opinion, based on what I've seen thus far.
Posted by muffled on October 2, 2006, at 11:38:40
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:05:46
Well I am amazed, and glad I stayed thru the 'discussion', about the rooms.
It was sort of horrible cuz usus. I run, or flap around madly trying to make it stop.
But it was ok in the end, much to my amazement.
It was sorta like a trust thing.
Like I was trusting that people I cared about would come round in the end.
That they wouldn't destroy each other.
And they didn't.....
I am amazed.
Completely delightfully amazed.
So I learned lots.
And it seems to have blown over mostly?
Though I still a little twitchy and afraid the fight will start again....
I think having a private place for admin discussions is very logical, and should proly be very useful to aid in the running of the site.
So I think it will be ok to try two rooms.
I think we need to try and be sensitive of each other in moving from room to room.
I'm not sure how that will work to be honest, but the IDEA seems good.
To have a more serious room, and a room where we can just be silly cuz we trying NOT to feel, and we can do it mostly safely there.
Thanks all.
Muffled
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:05:59
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by muffled on October 2, 2006, at 11:38:40
> Well I am amazed, and glad I stayed thru the 'discussion', about the rooms.
> It was sort of horrible cuz usus. I run, or flap around madly trying to make it stop.
> But it was ok in the end, much to my amazement.
> It was sorta like a trust thing.
> Like I was trusting that people I cared about would come round in the end.
> That they wouldn't destroy each other.
> And they didn't.....
> I am amazed.
> Completely delightfully amazed.
> So I learned lots.Thats great Muffled.
:-)> And it seems to have blown over mostly?
> Though I still a little twitchy and afraid the fight will start again....It might do... But if it does... You can avoid the threads - right? Like how if there are people in chat and the conversation gets heated then you might be able to find some people to chat with you in another room. I'm glad you stuck around too. ((((Muffled))))
> I think we need to try and be sensitive of each other in moving from room to room.
I agree...
But I also think some kind of sensitive honesty would be even better.
Assertiveness...
I guess people struggle with that too (I know I sure as hell do)
But maybe... It saves more hurts in the long run?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:13:10
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by Dinah on October 2, 2006, at 10:05:46
> The prefect's carriage (and prefects bathroom) were sort of privileges granted to prefects in Harry Potter.
Like how restricted chat is a sort of priviledge granted to deputies?
> Harry felt left out when Ron and Hermione went to sit in the prefect's carriage
Like how people might feel left out when the deputies go to restricted chat?
> and he had to find other people to sit with. Although he made a new friend in Luna Lovegood. Which is neither here nor there, but was important in plot development.
lol. Still seeing analogies...
> At any rate, a deputy chat room, the equivilant of a prefect carriage, is not what this is.It isn't? So non-prefects (deputies) can go there too can they?
> As gg says, it's more of a conference room.
Oh. So if we call it 'conference room' instead of 'gated community' instead of 'private chat' instead of 'exclusive chat' instead of 'small group' instead of 'prefects carriage' then that makes it completely different?
> Which is not to say that I approve of Dr. Bob's choices in how to go about this, and think he could have made choices more sensitive to the feelings of others.
I was pissed...
But I'd rather know upfront than have even more go on behind the scenes...
I seem to be about the only person upset about it at any rate...> I think the two room idea is not necessarily a good one.
Two rooms or three?
> It's not only confusing, but we've seen the kind of hurt that can arise when people retire there and are less than joyfully welcoming to others that might enter.
Kind of like following the link to restricted chat and finding BAM! One can't enter? How much of a 'less than joyful welcoming' is that?
> Prior experience already would seem to suggest that there should only be one room.One room, or two?
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:19:28
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 2, 2006, at 8:23:15
> Regarding the restricted chat room, do you think that all Babblers should be able to view and/or participate in administrative meetings?I guess I thought the admin board was for dealing with admin issues / concerns etc.
People do tend to check the posts regularly - don't they?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 14:08:23
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:19:28
>
> > Regarding the restricted chat room, do you think that all Babblers should be able to view and/or participate in administrative meetings?
>
> I guess I thought the admin board was for dealing with admin issues / concerns etc.I think that's generally true.
But I can't imagine it would be an effective process or all that meaningful to the community if I (or another deputy) were to post here that I encountered an error or some other kind of glitch in the adminstration system while I was trying to complete a deputy task. Or to say, "Heads up. I noticed X, but I won't have time to do Y until Z. Anyone else available?" Or to say, "In the next X weeks, days, months, etc., I'm planning on or have to do Y IRL, so I will not be as available or will be gone until Z." Or, "Gee, Dr. Bob. I wish we had an easier way to do X."
I'm a very curious person by nature, and I prefer being "in the loop" versus "out of the loop" in organizations and groups. So I can relate to feeling outside and how that can feel yucky in a number of different ways.
But I don't know of any large organization or group that is perfectly flat in organizational structure. I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
Levels of structure in groups/organizations do foster inclusion and exclusion. I guess I've always experienced this as an artifact of group process and a "necessary evil" of sorts so that groups can function efficiently and effectively.
>
> People do tend to check the posts regularly - don't they?Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. ??
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 14:46:32
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:13:10
I think I've explained my position enough times for me, Alex.
Not going to do it again.
Period.
I'm sorry if you don't agree/understand, but I don't see how repeating myself will help.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 16:32:45
In reply to Re: It's not going to be like the prefect's carria, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:13:10
> > The prefect's carriage (and prefects bathroom) were sort of privileges granted to prefects in Harry Potter.
>
> Like how restricted chat is a sort of priviledge granted to deputies?It's a tool, alex. It's not the only one. It's no different from email, listservs, IM's, phone calls, conference calls, etc. It's just a different medium. If you'd like to use "privilege" versus "tools", that's up to you. Either way, it's still about deputies having what they need to best fulfill the obligations we volunteered to take on. Is a firefighter "privileged" to have access to water? If she also has access to infrared imaging to aid in locating victims inside a burning building, is she a "privileged" firefighter? Or is she outfitted well by the department so she can best do her job? (In no way am I equating the importance of firefighters with being a deputy...just a metaphor).
> > Harry felt left out when Ron and Hermione went to sit in the prefect's carriage
>
> Like how people might feel left out when the deputies go to restricted chat?Feeling left out sucks. I don't know what else to say about this that wouldn't be some sort of platitude or would seem otherwise invalidating.
>
> > At any rate, a deputy chat room, the equivilant of a prefect carriage, is not what this is.
>
> It isn't? So non-prefects (deputies) can go there too can they?I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. Not having read or watched any Harry Potter (gasp!), I have no idea whether it is or isn't equivalent to a prefect's carriage. I do know that it's a space on the internet where members of a group can go to communicate with each other in real(ish) time. One of a gazillion (exaggeration for effect-- I'm not about to start counting). It is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. And as a mostly "empty space", I suppose it's ambiguous enough for multiple interpretations and assumptions.
So is the issue that the members of a group communicate with each other privately? That's not okay? Or that a "place" exists where not everyone can go? Something else?
> > As gg says, it's more of a conference room.
>
> Oh. So if we call it 'conference room' instead of 'gated community' instead of 'private chat' instead of 'exclusive chat' instead of 'small group' instead of 'prefects carriage' then that makes it completely different?What do you think, alex? Are you saying there's no difference at all between those different terms? Is there anything inherently wrong with the existence of any of those?
You and I have had private chats. Via email. Via private messages. Via telephone. Was there something wrong with that? Were we being exclusive? Private? Did it indicate something about anyone else that you and I chose to speak privately?
> I was pissed...
I hear that you were/are pissed, even if I don't understand it.
> Kind of like following the link to restricted chat and finding BAM! One can't enter? How much of a 'less than joyful welcoming' is that?
Ouch. That would be aggravating. It doesn't say anything about being restricted until you try to enter?
>
> > Prior experience already would seem to suggest that there should only be one room.
>
> One room, or two?sigh, why does it always take me so danged long to compose replies to you?
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 14:08:23
>But I can't imagine it would be an effective process or all that meaningful to the community if I (or another deputy) were to post here that I encountered an error or some other kind of glitch in the adminstration system while I was trying to complete a deputy task. Or to say, "Heads up. I noticed X, but I won't have time to do Y until Z. Anyone else available?" Or to say, "In the next X weeks, days, months, etc., I'm planning on or have to do Y IRL, so I will not be as available or will be gone until Z." Or, "Gee, Dr. Bob. I wish we had an easier way to do X."
I don't see how it would be ineffective. Deputies could be told that they should be sure to check the admin board regularly. I don't care whether it is meaningful to the community or not.
> I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
> Levels of structure in groups/organizations do foster inclusion and exclusion. I guess I've always experienced this as an artifact of group process and a "necessary evil" of sorts so that groups can function efficiently and effectively.
"Necessary evil".
If you see something as a "necessary evil" then... Well, it is pointless doing anything about it, of course. We could accept cancer and aids as necessary evils too, of course. Or we could strive to eliminate / reduce the amount of evil in the world.Would you like to remind me of your stance on small boards?
Posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 20:07:26
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
> >
> > I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.
>
> As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
>
> >On the other hand, let's not be careful to avoid all actions that have any negative consequence, because we'd be paralyzed. Also, it occurs to me that doing something, however non-ideal, can lead to doing something else, better, later. Disagreements about what to do, and debates about the various downsides of every possible plan, after a certain point (which we may have reached), again-- leads to not doing anything.
Try doing something in NYC-- very little happens here, because of the clever use of strategies of debate, and appeal-- except mostly disintegration of the infrastructure (until some crisis or near-crisis necessitates the closing, slowing or otherwise diminution of whatever basic service is involved), and the building of tall, rather low-quality, tax-abatement- supported luxury housing. You'll see then, Alex.... (not really--sorry to get off on the wearing effect of living in NYC)-- but there is a point where you just have to do whatever reasonable, but less than perfect, thing.
>
>
>
>If you feel left out, or otherwise that something about it deeply bothers you, maybe we could discuss your feelings--eg, on the psychology board. Discussing feelings doesn't mean there isn't a valid point of principal-- but it can help you address the point of principal more effectively.
Isn't it just possible that the issue is in some respect how you feel about this, as well as the thing itself? Because feeling left out-- is a universal experience (I hope, unless I"m weirder than I thought)-- and it's bad, but you know-- sometimes it can lead to another experience. Prefects' carriage or not (yeah, I didn't see Harry Potter either-- that must be some sort of record-- at least two people who didn't see Harry Potter posting within several days of one another on a message board.).
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 20:19:13
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 20:07:26
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I could imagine how a perfectly flat organization or group of any signficant number could function effectively for any period of time.> > As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
> On the other hand, let's not be careful to avoid all actions that have any negative consequence, because we'd be paralyzed.
Sure. I'm fairly sure there is a middle ground.
> If you feel left out, or otherwise that something about it deeply bothers you, maybe we could discuss your feelings--eg, on the psychology board...
Funny how that didn't seem to be the line when the discussion was about small boards / gated communities...
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:23:32
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » Jost, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 20:19:13
Small boars/gated communities are *communities*. Smaller. Different. But communities, at least as they seem to have been envisioned.
A work group/team/department/committee/insert other synonyms here gathering to do their work and to communicate in realtime is NOT the same thing. It's not a smaller version of the community. It's a task group.
There is no conflict in holding individual views on each. They have different structures, different functions, different uses, different contexts.
There's nothing wrong with anyone having the same reaction to both, but that does not mean they are the same thing. Let's be clear about what the two constructs are and are not.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 17:47:21
> I don't see how it would be ineffective. Deputies could be told that they should be sure to check the admin board regularly. I don't care whether it is meaningful to the community or not.
Deputies do check the admin board. How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient? If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them? Why would that be desirable or necessary? What benefit could there be in posting questions or comments that are not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards in contrast to the extra time it might take to try to explain to someone else just what I was talking about when the other person has never seen it and does not use the feature?
There's something about this I'm missing here. I can't conceive of why anyone would WANT to read that stuff or what benefit there would be to opening it up to everyone when it doesn't apply.
> As we tend to say in philosophy: Be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.Allright, plain speaking. In my experience working in a variety of organizations as an employee, volunteer, associate, student, beneficiary, etc., I have never encountered any large organization that functioned without at least two layers of structure. Call me unimaginative. I'll call it pragmatic and realistic.
> We could accept cancer and aids as necessary evils too, of course.You're comparing feeling excluded because of a chat room set up so that deputies and Dr. Bob can communicate in real time every other week or so to cancer and AIDS?
>
> Would you like to remind me of your stance on small boards?You've forgotten?
gg
Posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
I missed any discussion of small boards.
But, Alex, you've got to admit that gated communities-- by which I assume you mean, a closed communities established for the purpose of excluding so-called "undesireable" others, ie putting up a "gate" that symbolically to imposes seclusion but accomplishes nothing else--
are different from groups that come together to accomplish a (legitimate) purpose, such as organizing a message board, or the publication of a magazine (editorial boards) or giving direction to a university or other non-profit institution (the trustees).
I'm willing to bet that it's a whole lot more tedious than otherwise to be in most of the deputy meetings. It's kind of like grading papers, or giving grades in general. As a student, I always thought that must be incredibly exciting-- to wield that type of power-- etc etc. As a teacher, I found it unbearably wearisome to read exams, papers, to mull over the minutia of exactly what grades to assign, worry about the effects, or reactions of students whose grades weren't what they wanted, and so forth.
I have the feeling this is more like that, than not.
Jost
Posted by Racer on October 3, 2006, at 23:02:40
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
I just got back from a board meeting. It's our homeowner's association board of directors, we're dealing with a lot of [excrement] related to litigation and major repairs and construction defects and all the idiocy involved in dealing with architects, engineers, and contractors. And just guess how much fun it is?
Tonight's meeting was an executive session -- a meeting closed to the general population of homeowners who are generally welcome to come into our board meetings.
I'm sure there are people who would have a problem with that. But you know what? Those of us on the board have some background knowledge that helps keep these meetings halfway manageable -- we're not stopping the discussion about when to replace the balconies in order to ask what's going to happen to our tomato plants. We already know that that's been dealt with. We already know that that's three items down on the agenda. We already know that the meeting is going to go on until April if we stop to ask that sort of question. What we're certainly NOT doing is discussing other homeowners, nor having fun while excluding them.
I'm sorry Alex is so upset by this. Frankly, I don't understand why it's such a big deal, and I am rather annoyed that it's become a big deal, but I'm still sorry that it's caused pain to someone.
And I guess I'm with GG: I don't know why it takes me s olong to post something to this discussion...
Posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
In reply to Re: IPrivate chat » muffled, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:05:59
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
> There is no conflict in holding individual views on each. They have different structures, different functions, different uses, different contexts.
I'm trying to remember the reasons people gave for why they were so opposed to exclusive boards... Things like 'people will feel excluded if they can't post' and 'it will create division on the boards' and stuff like that. I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms. I particularly remember a conversation about how it wasn't a good idea to have exclusive boards because people would feel like they were being slapped if they tried to goto the board / post on the board and got a message that they couldn't. I'm wondering why the person who was concerned about that isn't concerned about that in this case?
I know they aren't the same thing. They seem to be similar in relevant respects and hence yes I am surprised that people go one way on one of those and the other way on the other. Surprised. Yeah.
> Deputies do check the admin board.
Right then. So there is a forum already for admin issues and once a post is posted I guess people read the post without it going AWOL or whatever too...
> How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient?
What a high opinion you have on the deputies and Dr Bob! Don't mistake a failure of imagination into an insight into necessity. I think that other Babblers have shown an interest in how things are done here, and I think that other Babblers have demonstrated technical competence at times, too.
> If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them?
Nobody has an obligation to answer posts to the best of my knowledge. Especially not on the admin board as the purpose isn't support.
> Why would that be desirable or necessary?
It isn't necessary. It might be desirable...
> What benefit could there be in posting questions or comments that are not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards...
> There's something about this I'm missing here. I can't conceive of why anyone would WANT to read that stuff or what benefit there would be to opening it up to everyone when it doesn't apply.
Maybe some examples of deputy issues that are 'not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards' and deputy issues that 'doesn't apply' to Babblers would help.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:38:30
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
The issue around small boards...
Babble has become a big city. Lots of posters. There are benefits to big cities, but there can be costs too... Dr Bob thought it might be nice to have some small town boards too. Boards whose membership numbers were restricted so that people could get to know one another better and feel freer to post without being misunderstood. To promote a bonding experience.
It was unclear how they were going to work. Would they be invitation only? Would it be first come first served? How many people should there be? Should there be a new small board opened whenever there were enough people who were interested? Should the content be viewable by people who couldn't post to the board?
They were met with serious opposition.
I can remember some of the reasons people gave for *why* they were so objectionable:
- People will feel excluded
- It will be just like a 'gated community' / 'exclusive community' etc
- People will feel slapped if they try to enter / post but are prevented
- It will create division on the boardsI know that a private chat room for deputies is different from a private board. One is a room, the other is a board, I understand the difference.
What I don't understand, however, is why those reasons that people had *against* small boards don't apply to private chat?
Just trying to understand...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:43:20
In reply to :-) (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
hey muffled
((((((((((muffled))))))))))))
;-)
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.