Subject:
|
Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:34:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
180 times
|
| |
|
|
I'll reply to this, but really without considering Jesse at *all*. I agree
that this should be an issue, on some level...
In lugnet.admin.general, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> ~~~~~~~
> Is it possible for people with "special needs" to be welcomed
> into, and co-exist peacefully with, the LUGNET user community?
> ~~~~~~~
>
> Loaded question, eh? ;]
You could say so, yes...
> 1) He's a "troll", "social engineer", whetever.
> 2) He's a kid, telling a few fibs on the internet.
> 3) He has some behaviorial difficulties owing to a medical
> condition.
Right. I think one of the three applies to every single case I can think of
(which aren't too many!) of people being consistently oblivient of lugnet's
"unwritten rules" or norms or whatever, even when they *are* being spelled
out to them.
<snip>
> In the back of my mind a little voice was nagging me. It was
> telling me that categories 2) and 3) above were still very
> real possibilites. And probably more likely than assumption 1),
> which I took.
>
> I see a very key difference between category 1) and 2/3). The
> first one is someone who is being disruptive by *intent*. It's
> pre-meditated. The latter 2 cases are not.
Uhh, I don't neccessarily agree that 2 is *completely* unmalicious. Now,
granted, kids telling fibs on the net are plenty (1) and they don't always
realize what's wrong with that. But still, I see case 2 as being *worlds*
different than case 3. I can't point my finger at the difference but I feel
it exists, and is quite large.
> Whether that person
> is being clueless, annoying, or even breaking some rules, it
> represents the limits of behaviour that that person is able to
> achieve currently in their life. While they may be able to
> improve their behaviour to something a little more agreeable to
> the rest of us, that change takes (relatively-speaking) a very
> long time.
Point taken. You're right. There are quite a few examples of *that* too.
> Category 2 means the kid needs to continue maturing,
> which obviously takes time. Category 3 means that person's
> behaviour is decoupled from their age---their character may not
> evolve at the same rate as the kid in 2. They may never attain
> behavioural patterns that the rest of us find tolerable.
Correct...
> Had people on LUGNET assumed Jesse was in category 2, they probably
> would have just ignored him if they weren't interested in
> communicating with a kid, and likely wouldn't have made (as much)
> fun at his expense. If his behaviour was still unacceptable, I'm
> sure some off-line activity would take place. I believe those
> under a certain age require parental consent to post here. Those
> parents could be contacted in such a case.
Under 18, but they are not required to give out email or any kind of contact
info at all. I for one *did* ask my parents before doing things here, but I
don't do that 100% of the time (I don't bother my parents with insignificant
stuff), and just because I did doesn't mean everyone has.
> But what of someone in category 3? If the person is left on
> their own, well, we've seen what happens.
Have we? I don't know of anyone on lugnet that fits in that category. We're
all crazy to some extent, and I'm sure enough people have mental problems
here, but that doesn't affect their postings... I can't think of anyone
(*except* Jesse) who's given us reason to believe that their posting is
inefficeint <sp> because of behavioral problems. Jesse may or may not be
fibbing with regard to that; but I don't want to discuss his case right now,
only the general implications of this.
> 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.
That's not the message he's sending. Whenever someone points something out,
he usually doesn't say "I have such and such problems" but rather "who are
you to tell me what to do". In fact, he hasn't been consistent about either
of these.
> 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.
Yes, you are right, I've seen this happen.
> 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.
Who would do that exactly? Would you have someone in *charge* of that?
Uhhh... I'm not sure I like that. The behavior police? Rings bells back to
the lugnet council... that didn't turn out very well.
> 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.
Hmmm. I see good things and bad things about this... in doing that we're
singling people out for being "different".
> 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.
Right again.
-Shiri
(1) I know of tons of examples from peers, friends (when they were younger)
and even my sister and cousin did it a few times 'fore we caught it...
although I've never done it myself.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
| (...) Understood. I don't feel comfortable with it either. (...) Yeah, I know what you mean..., I can't seem to wordify it either. There is a difference. I guess I could have better described 2 ("the kid") as someone who (may or) may not be doing (...) (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
|
|
|
|
