Cool Flags Doc John!!!

Quote:
alexandra_k said:

I guess I think it draws attention to differences that... Really don't matter to me. I prefer to take people on their merits rather than sorting people into the 'new people' vs 'people who have been here for a long time' boxes.

Aren't we all "different"? And what is wrong with being "different"? Not necessarily agreeing that because an "icon/badge" is put under a person's nic means they are different. If you want to think of a member being here over three years and a member being here for one year as being different, I guess you can.

Guess I don't think that way. I just think oo wow that person has been a member for a long time. And when I see the supporter's icon/badge I think, oo wow they have a lot to say and prob have helped someone who doesn't always have a lot to say. I just don't see it as being different or drawing attention to one member more than another. They aren't saying one person is better than another.. All it says to me is a person made a lot of posts and are maybe more outgoing ..

I just don't understand all the huff.....

'Tis best to choose ones battles. Some minimal things in life are truly just not worth getting involved in. After all, how often is it that we sit up at night anxiously thinking "Gosh! those darn badges sure are terrible! What I would do to get rid of them!" I guess sometimes its really just best to be involved in things that truly are meaningful, and that are not just there to satisfy someones deep-rooted, underlying need for recognition, acknowlegement, or whatever it may be. Pray for peace, look for love, life is good.

I'm just testing what if any I have. LOL

I like 'em ((((DocJohn))))

How about the good that it tells a new person? If they see many ppl who have been here a certain (long) length of time, won't they feel more comfortable to see that ppl stay and so it may be a good site, and also see members that they might ask questions about PC? Maybe they might consider something they say with more weight than another new member, IDK, don't know that that matters.

Why wouldn't a person's time here, level of membership, whether they've added to the site or not, why isn't that considered part of a person's "own merits?" Surely we have had members who seemed to post just to get their numbers up, but ppl still felt support from it. It isn't easy to sit and read and then think and reply, as everyone who does it knows. It can be tough to scrape up a few bucks to toss into the community fund because someone else right then might need it more than you. It takes effort and time to write an article that would appeal to such a varied readership, as many of you know. It takes dedication to come here each day or so (I know, many of you think you are just doing it for yourself) and thereby giving support to the site (you show up on the who's online list, the overall active membership count stays good, advertisers are more likely to work with the webmaster and thus make it easier for DocJohn to continue to provide this site free to all of us!

While I have no problem with those members who come and read -or maybe those ppl who don't even join but just read - no problem with those who can't or haven't written, haven't been able to give to the community fund or maybe not posted much even if here a long time, I think it might be important to realize that without members doing all those things (posting, supporting, giving,) PC wouldn't function!

Members make PC run! If you don't need the badges, that's fine, but there are those, the majority of ppl who do need some recognition in some form. It's another way that DocJohn is supporting the members here, at PC, who help the site be not only successful, but a really good support site.

Furthermore, we need to give DocJohn support too, and I know how I would feel if I did something for the good of the membership, and then not be supported for doing it. Of course, DocJohn understands how and why we respond like we do, but still... He's human too (though I bet we don't like to think so, more like to think that he can walk on water if he wanted to) and it's our job - the membership's job - imo to give support back to him. I don't mind appreciating every thing he does to improve the site!

I may not have said everything just "so" but I trust you understand the spirit of what I'm trying to say. TC!

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

'Tis best to choose ones battles. Some minimal things in life are truly just not worth getting involved in

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

umm lol.. I don't know if you just posted under me or was directing your comment to me.

I just want to clarify. I am not battling with anyone. And I am just voicing my opinion. As you just did.

Hey.. I like the icon/badge or whatever one wants to call it. I see no problem having them under folks nics.. I think it is cool

I guess I just don't see how the fact that one has written over a certain number of posts, or the fact that one has donated money or whatever is likely to be a reliable indicator of the level of support one can expect to receive if one were to seek that person out.

A person might have only 5 posts here and yet be uncommonly supportive if you seek them out.

A person might have 5,000000000000000 posts here and yet be uncommonly incomprehanding / unsupportive if you seek them out.

I guess I just don't see how relevant the indicator is of the level of support that people are capable of providing. And I guess I think the indicators can be positively harmful if people take them to be reliable indicators of things that they are not in fact reliable indicators of.

If people are using them as reliable indicators of the level of support that a person is likely to provide then I really do understand why some people will feel upset if they don't have those indicators. They will think that others will likely perceive them as being unsupportive if they don't have the indicators.

I'd prefer to just bypass the whole issue by...

1) Choosing not to view the indicator 'status' of others (so I'm not tempted to form unwarranted generalizations about others on the basis of them
2) Choosing not to have my indicator 'status' viewable to others (so they aren't tempted to form unwarranted generalizations about me on the basis of them

I actually think...
This issue ties in a great deal...

To issues that have already come up about gender / age / race stereotypes...

I don't see why you feel our views are mutually exclusive? Do what you need to to stay safe, alex. TC.

PS...

This isn't at all to say that the INTENTION of the indicators was to create division and to leave people feeling unappreciated.

This isn't at all to say that the INTENTION of the indicators is to promote potentially harmful stereotypes.

It is just to say that this might well be one UNINTENDED consequence of the decision to include those indicators.

And...

This isn't a battle... I'm just stating my view. For what it is worth.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
I don't see why you feel our views are mutually exclusive? Do what you need to to stay safe, alex. TC.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Well... We seem to be in agreement that when people view that someone is regarded a 'supporter' or has been here for a long time that people will form judgements / opinions about the poster ON THE BASIS OF THE INDICATORS.

I think that the judgements / opinions that people form on the basis of the indicators are likely to be:

1) Harmful

Whereas you think that the judgements / opinions that people form on the basis of the indicators are likely to be:

2) Helpful

And there is the disagreement.

i can see both points of view... so.. i'm confused..

Ah, I'm sorry. I didn't make it back in time to edit my post: I would like to say, that I think our opinions are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps if ppl do form judgments on such a basis, that it might be harmful. I would think that may be the way they look at most things though, and not an outcome caused by the site's posting badges.

I feel I'm off topic a bit here, and wish to send kudos to DocJohn for this Hawthorne effect effort, if nothing else!!

Yeah okay. I'm actually at work in the middle of writing something for my thesis... And these issues relate to that - so that might be why I feel the urge to get involved in these discussions (ignore me if I go all comprehensible)...

I guess there are lots of different things that the indicators might do. Here are some:

1) People might take more care of newbies because it is more apparent to viewers that they are newbies.

I'm sure we agree that that would be a good thing.

2) People might ignore newbies because they aren't 'supporters' of psychcentral and people decide to seek out 'supporters' rather than posting to people who aren't.

I guess we might disagree a little... But that might be a harmful thing?

The thing that I'm most worried about is this:

3) People who aren't given 'supporter' status might feel like they are regarded as 'unsupportive'.

I think that people are likely to feel this way when people say things like 'I'm so glad I'm given supporter status because it acknowledges the fact that I've given support'. The implication kind of being that some people have 'earned' their status and the people who don't have that status simply don't deserve it.

I think that is harmful.

Now of course we might say that they should just get over it... But I do think that this (likely) response by people who aren't given 'supporter' status should be taken into account when we are weighing the harms and the benefits in order to figure out whether they are a good idea or not such a good idea - all (harms and benefits) considered...

I guess when I weigh the likely harms / benefits I think it is more likely to harm than to benefit.

I guess when others weigh the likely harms / benefits they think it is more likely to benefit than to harm.

It might be that some harms that have occurred to me haven't occurred to them...
It might be that some benefits that have occurred to them haven't occurred to me...

(That is kind of why it is profitable to discuss differences of opinion)

(And that is why I don't feel particularly upset when people are disagreeing - I appreciate people getting the chance to air their views so that I can take on board some of the considerations they raise that may well not have occurred to me).

I guess we disagree on the verdict...
Which shows we disagree on either the factors that we take to be relevant OR whether the factors are taken to be harmful vs helpful OR the weighting allocated to those factors.

i like the way you broke that out alexandra... it clarifies what for me, is a somewhat confusing and conflicting feeling...

maybe its the boy scout in me that never grew up.... but i couldnt want someone else to feel harmed by my ego needs...

i can find positive ways to have a positive self image without doing that...

i think many ive known would argue that it is all a bit over micro management of elements... but elements matter...

I still like 'em.

we're kinda conflicted on this coz we were really happy to get the little marker thingy

ok, we know it's pathetic

have any of you considered that some of us get so little validation in our lives that even a little marker thingy at PC is an achievement ?

Change is tough...I understand both sides...

So, this is just my personal opinion! I think they are okay. Matter of fact, I like them. What about more?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
I guess I just don't see how the fact that one has written over a certain number of posts, or the fact that one has donated money or whatever is likely to be a reliable indicator of the level of support one can expect to receive if one were to seek that person out.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
Small point, Alexandra, it's "PC" Supporter, not supporter-of-others. We support PsychCentral with our posts; if no one posts, there is no PsychCentral. If no one gives, DocJohn may not be able to have so many cool features or help individual members as he does with his fund drives. If he cannot help, he probably doesn't want to be here?

Taken further, it's not out of the question that if I support the site, I'm also going to support those who come to the site. Yes, I post a lot because I'm mostly just a humble, know-it-all, wanna-be, IRL (Internet Research Librarian) but I post here rather than "there". And, I'm not posting obscurely off in some corner of the site, but "responding" to other people's posts. That gives the other people a thrill such that they come back to read my witty, erudite responses. So, while it is all about me, there are side effects for the site. Too, you and I are having a conversation here right now that others are reading and thinking about and learning from, etc. because you and I are both wonderful PC Supporters! I would, literally, be nothing without you and your point of view. What would I respond to?

On the 'I don't receive much validation in my life so why shouldn't I just enjoy this validation that I am receiving' point.

I would say: That there are ways to receive validation that don't involve invalidation to others. I'm concerned that while these icons validate some members contributions (by acknowledging some members as a 'supporter' the very same icons are invalidating of other members (by failing to acknowledge other members as a 'supporter').

So... Weighing the validation to some vs the invalidation to others...

Regarding the 'supporting PC vs supporting others' distinction there seems to be two points of dispute.

1) One could dispute whether number of posts / financial support etc is an appropriate measure of how one does or does not support PC.
2) One could dispute whether being acknoweledged as a supporter of PC is a reliable indicator of a poster supporting others.

I"m not at all meaning to say that it is out of the question that people who are acknowledged as supporters of the site are more likely to support others than those who are not acknowledged as supporters of the site. Though one would need to do a study in order to assess the truth of this (empirical) claim). I am questioning whether being acknowledged as a supportive member of this site is likely to be a RELIABLE INDICATOR of whether one is likely to be supportive to others. This seems to be an assumption, and I'm not at all sure that this is something that we should merely assume.

I'm also questioning whether encouraging people to post more (or to donate money) in order to be regarded as a 'supportive' member of the site is really something that is valued. Why do we care about QUANTITY rather than QUALITY of posts?

I guess I'm just wary... Of something that makes it even harder for newbies to feel accepted and supported and valued here...

newbies arent always 'first timers' to support boards, nor are they uneducated.. ive seen first posters with highly elevated points of view.... it shouldnt be distinctive that 'supporters' are better educated imo...

im very dumb at times...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
One could dispute whether number of posts / financial support etc is an appropriate measure of how one does or does not support PC.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
One could dispute, but seeings how the grand vizir obviously feels it's an appropriate measure, having enacted it, who am I to dispute? Until recently one's monetary support went directly to an account in his name! If he deems it support, why would I dispute?

This is my last say here on this.....

Wanted to say that Alexandra gets it- thank you Alexandra.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
1) One could dispute whether number of posts / financial support etc is an appropriate measure of how one does or does not support PC.
2) One could dispute whether being acknoweledged as a supporter of PC is a reliable indicator of a poster supporting others.


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
EXACTLY!

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I am questioning whether being acknowledged as a supportive member of this site is likely to be a RELIABLE INDICATOR of whether one is likely to be supportive to others. This seems to be an assumption, and I'm not at all sure that this is something that we should merely assume.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> YES, I did think that I WAS a supportive person....... but I just don't rate ...... all of the sudden I'm back, a little girl, with the "golden" sister-- telling me I'm a loser, no one will ever want to be my friend, I'm an outsider.

get over it, you say?-- argh!! why don't those get over being afraid of thunder storms, or getting that drop in ones stomach when someone snickers at them for their weight, or get over the triggers that one feels when they read about childporn...... get over it--- yeah, anyone that would think that here would be a hypocrite!

I'm done here..........

I thank those that understand and have been supportive to me in my struggles. This is just not the place for me when I have to "jump through hoops" to be recognized.... when there are secret forums for those that "belong".

I've tried, I've tried so hard.......... now to be reminded every time I sign in...... it isn't fair, I can't do this.....

Zorah... you are so right: </font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
have any of you considered that some of us get so little validation in our lives that even a little marker thingy at PC is an achievement ?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> and when one doesn't get any recognition.....

Thank you to those that have been kind to me. I have always appreciated you. And thank you docjohn for letting me belong someplace for awhile......
I just can't ignore the pain anymore........

mandy

(((((mandyfins))))) i know i dont know you well, ive only read your posts and not replied for reasons not related to you....

this badge thing is really getting to be a bit un-necessary... i can live with out it...

but, its not just my opinion that matters....

PC is support.... if it has a mission statement, i bet that word appears many times...

anything else is fluff... we all should know that...

Well... Because you are a human being with (occasionally anyway)
;-)
Thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, and opinions
That differ from other peoples.

Because people are fallible.
Its part of being a person.
People fail to take all things into account sometimes,
And I think it is a wonderful thing about being a
SOCIAL BEING
(which humans are as a matter of fact)
That we are well placed to
consider
think about
and possibly integrate
All of the considerations that people bring up
Whether or not they occured to one beforehand
(When the decision was made)

As for WHY one would dispute...
I'm aware my upbringing is fairly indiosyncratic...
But I was taught that saying what one really thinks...
Especially when one disagrees (even partially) with another...
Is a mark of
Courage (to assert ones own position)
And Respect (that another is able to handle a respectful difference of opinion)
and Faith (that different people have valuable things to contribute)