Subject:
|
Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:04:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
169 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> "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.
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 I was
thinking about. If there is a point of contact to someone, uhm,
"responsible" for that person, then you can raise concerns with
them. Perhaps they just decide to cut-off that persons access,
who knows?
In the LUGNET context, I was thinking maybe if several people
had suspicions about something like this, then somebody can
contact the poster and ask to speak with a parent or guardian.
I'm not sure how smoothly that would go. But failing that the
person does not get any help. But if you can get in touch with
someone in-the-know, they can fill you in on that person's
situation, and maybe people can modify their interactions
accordingly, assuming it's an agreeable modification that's
required.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I think we stepped in something.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
