Subject:
|
Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:29:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
176 times
|
| |
|
|
"Kyle D. Jackson" wrote:
> 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.
You bring up a very interesting question. Online situations
unfortunately have an serious handicap in human relations in that you
don't get any visual or verbal clues. In another online forum, which is
an adjunct to a face-to-face forum, I am the administrator of an e-mail
list and we have one member who fits category 3. Every once in a while
she has an outburst, and the most recent one spawned several responses.
During that most recent outburst, I was put in a difficult position of
having to decide what to do. In the end, I was able to do not much. One
person who has developed rapport with the woman communicated with her. A
couple other folks took it upon themselves to let the folks who were
posting in response know what the deal was. The result was that after a
day the incident was over.
Lugnet has the disadvantage of not being grounded in a face-to-face
group (though many face-to-face groups or meetings have sprung up from
the contact Lugnet has given us). The result is that it isn't too likely
that someone who actually knows a disruptive person personally is on
Lugnet to pass the word on the background.
The fact does remain however that no matter the reason for a persons
disruptiveness, it can reach a point where it must be dealt with by
restricting the disruptive person's access to the group. At some point
enough is enough. If the person has a medical condition, they (and/or
their guardian) is responsible for doing what is necessary to be a
positive influence to the group. In the woman's case, when she is on
medication, she is not disruptive and is a worthwhile member of the
group. If her disruptions become too much, I would expect support from
her parents (who are taking care of her) to remove her from the group
until the situation is brought under control again.
I expect the same responsibilities of every member of the Lugnet
community. I expect that removal of posting privilege will be extremely
rare, and will usually resume as soon as the individual in question is
able to communicate that they understand the rules and why their posting
privileges were suspended. Care must be taken that once administrative
intervention is initiated, that the person is given a fair shake if they
choose to discuss the situation in the appropriate administrative group.
Their suspension should not be increased solely because they debated the
administrators. On the other hand, it certainly behooves them to show
that they are willing to accept some responsibility (even if they feel
they have been wronged).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
| (...) As I mentioned to Shiri, I hadn't thought at all of a case like this where medication could help "control" the behaviour. I was thinking of cases where there is no such possible aid. But in spite of that, I think your example fits exactly what (...) (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
|
|
|
|
