Subject:
|
Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:30:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
188 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
<snipped for brevity, not for quality>
> ~~~~~~~
> Is it possible for people with "special needs" to be welcomed
> into, and co-exist peacefully with, the LUGNET user community?
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Loaded question, eh? ;]
<more snippage, but still good stuff...go read it>
> But what of someone in category 3? If the person is left on
> their own, well, we've seen what happens. Many of us have
> variously categorized Jesse with degrees of "badness", assuming
> that his "disruptions" were willful, and that he wasn't interested
> in taking anyone's advice.
>
> Well what if he *can't*? Maybe it's simply an unfortunate
> truth for him. But it is not *intentional*, he just can't help it.
>
> This has been bugging me for some time. And I do feel really
> bad about the way things have gone down. I felt like saying to
> a few people off-line, "hey, did you ever think that maybe...?",
> but I chose to stay out of it.
>
> I think many of us who frequent LUGNET are more than capable of
> spotting someone who seems "different" somehow. We figure they
> may be in one of the 3 categories above, but we just don't know
> which one. Individually we all form different theories. And
> that's where trouble starts.
>
> I would like to see LUGNETers toss out some ideas about how
> this could be handled in the future. Perhaps LUGNET Admin could
> develop some SOPs (standard operating procedures <G>) for
> "debugging" rare cases such as this. Contacting the poster
> off-line, asking some questions, feeling them out to try to
> assess which category they may be in. Perhaps move on to
> requesting communication with a parent, etc. Communication like
> that could very quickly flush out what the issue is. And
> then the other LUGNET users could be made aware of this somehow,
> and tactfully, such that they exercise a little more patience
> and tolerance in that special user's regard. I dunno, maybe
> they even have a little brick appear next to their name on
> posts (web-interface only, I know), or whatever. Just something
> that hopefully would make difference.
>
> I would hate to think that LUGNET, a site devoted to a bunch of
> people who like LEGO, could end up being accused of not being
> tolerant and understanding of those with special needs. Remember,
> in written communication the poster can conceal every single
> difference that may bring prejudice from others except
> one: their mind, with its various limitations.
Kyle,
You bring up some good, thought-provoking points here. I can tell you really
have been wracking your brain over this issue...and it's a good and relevant
issue, too...
BUT...
Is special treatment warranted, or even wanted? During the current JAL
debacle, I wrote about LUGNET being a clean slate, a fresh start for anyone
who wants to take advantage of it.
I personally don't care what might be wrong with someone...not in the
callous way (which many folks might take it in)...I mean it in the most
tolerant way possible...I just couldn't care less if someone has something
"wrong" with them, because in type, for the most part, it just doesn't apply.
If folks with "problems" always need to be handled with kid-gloves, how
would Stephen Hawking have done all of his work? How would Jim Abbott have
pitched in the Major Leagues? How can Marlee Maitland act, or Stevie Wonder
play piano and sing? Do these people WANT to be singled out as different? Or
would they expect to be treated the same as anyone else?
The only exception I see to this is the situation that changed Geordan's
name for us...Larry and I both touched on the idea of protecting minors on
LUGNET by allowing handles, or blocking e-mail addresses, and I still see
that as something important...but with this caveat: Their parents ought to
know whaere they are, what they are doing, have read the ToU, and know that
their child is exposed here, both to possible "adult" language, and by
having their true name and e-mail published publicly. But this is the
parents responsibility, not LUGNETs.
There are some thoughts for ya', Kyle. Anything of value to you there?
Matt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
| (...) I've been thinking about this. My jury is still out on this one..., in other words I'm wimping out on forming an opinion ;] In general I believe everybody should get the same treatment. However sometimes, specifically if it will help the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I think we stepped in something.
|
| G'day folks, Note 1: I decided to compose this post because of the events of late concerning Jesse Alan Long. If you don't want to read something that will make your head hurt, skip this ;] Note 2: I am not arguing with any actions that have been or (...) (23 years ago, 7-Aug-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
