Disruptive members
I would like to mention that it seems in the past two years (I have been a netrunner since 1978) that I am finding myself fleeing quite often from lists, forums, discussion groups, etc. that have disruptive people on them jamming up my mailbox and polluting the creativity of each group with incredible vile negativism. Besides being a personal problem for me, it is also a professional problem as I am currently in Japan trying to launch a 10,000 player cyberspace RPG community. I liken people such to a situation where a group of friends are sitting talking around a fireplace deep in creative discussion and a Felini style circus band starts marching through the room playing at full volume. If this was in your home, you would throw them out; if at a ski lodge, the management would throw them out; if in a public place, the police would disperse them for "disturbing the peace" (have you ever wondered WHY all civilizations have such laws?!?). Yet in cyberspace, people toss out phrases like "freedoms", and "rights" to excuse such behavior apparently without much consideration to the "responsibilities" inherent in those phrases. At a conference recently, I spent over two hours talking to the fellow who runs a large Moo about exactly this problem. He is also faced with such people (although thankfully not quite so extreme), and his "society" is having a VERY difficult time trying to develop procedures for dealing with such people. He told me about a particularly nasty situation where some girl in his Moo was "virtually raped" by another member. The Moo was horrified, but could not figure out how to deal with the culprit. Right now, I think that perhaps much of the nets is still made up of people who are experienced in netrunning, but the sheer quantity of new inexperienced people joining is getting astronomical. If their initial contact is with a group containing a disrupter type, then they may run shuddering from the nets forever. If enough of them complain (to school administrators, postmasters, political figures), then very heavy handed laws will be slammed down in top of the nets in retaliation. It is a well known historical/political fact that any activity that is not successful at self-control WILL BE controlled from without, or smashed apart for "the good of the people".
From reading recent postings, I gather that many feel as I once did, that disruptive people will just flame out and go away. And once that was so, but no longer. I have seen over 15 groups laid waste in the past two years by such people. They did not go away, but rather gloated over the deceased corpse of the group. Many of the members of those groups I have not seen again on the nets. I now firmly believe that such chaotic people have to be dealt with and promptly. I am still unclear how to deal with them, but I do know that time is of the essence. The longer they are allowed to pollute your group, the deeper the cancer runs affecting everyone's perspective.
I look forward to any constructive comments.
Right now, I think that perhaps much of the nets is still made up of people who are experienced in netrunning, but the sheer quantity of new inexperienced people joining is getting astronomical. If their initial contact is with a group containing a disrupter type, then they may run shuddering from the nets forever. If enough of them complain (to school administrators, postmasters, political figures), then very heavy handed laws will be slammed down in top of the nets in retaliation. It is a well known historical/political fact that any activity that is not successful at self-control WILL BE controlled from without, or smashed apart for "the good of the people".
I agree with you strongly; however, the notion of a list as a space, and the list members having their collective image tarnished by the presence of disruptive members clearly hasn't sunk in. Instead we get a lot of silly "freedom of speech" rhetoric. I guess they haven't realized that every forum doesn't have to be a noisy street corner or an all-comers keg party. (where, respectively, free speech works to the point of tolerating loud crazies and vomiting) The whole argument that people can use kill files is utterly bogus if outreach is even a minor goal for the group. Note that the extropians not only provide list-administered kill files, but also threaten disruptive members with expulsion, and as a result have excellent signal to noise. Good parallel to the similar problem of disruptive and violent individuals on MOOs, btw. Doug -- ---------------- /\ Douglas Barnes cman@illuminati.io.com / \ Chief Wizard (512) 447-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v) / () \ Illuminati Online metaverse.io.com 7777 /______\
This list is allowing itself to be disrupted. More effort is being expended by its members complaining and commenting about LD than he is expending. Ignore the guy and get on with life. -David
David Kovar writes:
This list is allowing itself to be disrupted. More effort is being expended by its members complaining and commenting about LD than he is expending. Ignore the guy and get on with life.
It's worth noting that the perceived problem with Lance Detweiler is a problem that sooner or later surfaces in all forums, whether they're mailing lists or newsgroups--namely, the problem of a certain person or subject matter driving people away from the forum. Fleeing the problem doesn't fix it. It recurs wherever you go. Solving the problem in a top-down way (e.g., by banning a person from a forum) doesn't fix it, and that kind of centralized-censorship solution runs counter to the dynamic of the Net, which is not structured to support centralized censorship. (Theoretically, mailing lists are structured that way, but in practice anything but the most light-handed moderation tends to kill the spontaneity of discussions.) The best solutions are bottom-up solutions: solutions in which individuals can make choices about what they wish to see, but can't impose those choices on others. These solutions take many forms. The least sophisticated, and the least effective, is to unsubscribe from a "noisy" list--as I noted before, the problem recurs on all forums. A better solution is to ignore the noisy postings--this is the Detweiler Pledge Solution. Still better is the artful use of mail filters. (A nonartful use of filters may prevent some people from reading this message, since it includes the string "detweiler.") It strikes me as relatively on-topic for cypherpunks to discuss technical solutions, such as mail filters, for solving the "noisy forum problem." For some, adequate solutions may already be in place. But I note that for "mere users" (as distinct from sophisticated users and programmers), current filtering tools are difficult to use. What can make this better? --Mike Mike Godwin, (202) 347-5400 |"And walk among long dappled grass, mnemonic@eff.org | And pluck till time and times are done Electronic Frontier | The silver apples of the moon, Foundation | The golden apples of the sun."
Mike Godwin writes :
It strikes me as relatively on-topic for cypherpunks to discuss technical solutions, such as mail filters, for solving the "noisy forum problem." For some, adequate solutions may already be in place. But I note that for "mere users" (as distinct from sophisticated users and programmers), current filtering tools are difficult to use. What can make this better?
I subscribed to the Extropians list for a while and was quite impressed with the list management software they were running. Commands could be sent to the list processor like 'exclude <thread>', 'exclude <user>', etc via regular e-mail messages; with this capability, anyone who can use e-mail can personally manage the stream of postings headed for their mailbox. In my opinion, this approach strikes a comfortable balance between outright censorship and mass confusion. ........................................................................ Philippe D. Nave, Jr. | The person who does not use message encryption pdn@dwroll.dw.att.com | will soon be at the mercy of those who DO... Denver, Colorado USA | PGP public key: by arrangement.
Mike Godwin says:
It's worth noting that the perceived problem with Lance Detweiler is a problem that sooner or later surfaces in all forums, whether they're mailing lists or newsgroups--namely, the problem of a certain person or subject matter driving people away from the forum.
Fleeing the problem doesn't fix it. It recurs wherever you go.
Solving the problem in a top-down way (e.g., by banning a person from a forum) doesn't fix it, and that kind of centralized-censorship solution runs counter to the dynamic of the Net,
It works in places like the Extropians mailing list -- the S/N periodically has crises, but they are short and the troublemakers get booted for good. It isn't counter to the dynamic of the net, either. A mailing list is like someone's living room. If your houseguests start pissing on the sofas, it isn't unreasonable to kick them out. "Banned" persons are free to start their own mailing lists, post to newsgroups, etc. They've just been denied access to the computing resources of the list maintainer for purposes of spreading their inane rants. It doesn't even stop the persons in question from communicating individually to all the people who were on the mailing list. Too many people think "Freedom of Speech" means "freedom to speak in anyone's living room if they feel like it", which it does NOT mean. As a practice, removing people is simple, cheap, and astonishingly effective. Perry
re: on forum disruption
The best solutions are bottom-up solutions: solutions in which individuals can make choices about what they wish to see, but can't impose those choices on others.
I agree with this, I really do. Nevertheless, I think this characterization incomplete in two ways. First, let us stipulate that for the near future the notion of the named group, whose members are all expected, more or less, to share in a common discourse, will remain useful and desirable. The sharing of discourse creates a group history, which in turn creates a group identity. The lack of completeness in Mike's characterization is to recognize that group participation is not completely individualistic, that to gain the benefits of a common discourse it is necessary to participate in that discourse by saying one thing and not saying another. Stricture creates structure. The bottom up solution is not merely the elimination of stricture but rather to increase the ability to choose structure. In a truly free society one has the ability to limit one's freedom for whatever purpose desired. Cypherpunks is like this. I have no theoretical problem with turning off list disrupters, although I do consider it a grave action. It is the practice of the list to broadcast anything requested to be broadcast, yet this does not make this forum a public forum. Each person on the list has transferred, _de facto_, some agency to the maintainer (that's me) about how the list will operate. The second incompleteness is remedied by explictly referring to transferability of preference. One thing the extropians list software does right is to allow filtering at the server; this is a transfer of preference and can be an economic optimization. Bottom-up solutions are incomplete to the extent that they require the solution to remain at the bottom. Eric
But I note that for "mere users" (as distinct from sophisticated users and programmers), current filtering tools are difficult to use. What can make this better?
I'll second Mike's statement by repeating a maxim I periodically need to repeat here: Cypherpunks are not the Hacker Privacy League. It is certainly much easier to create privacy systems that are difficult to install and require much background knowledge about the computer system in question than it is to create systems that are simple to install and reliable to use. If we create systems that only we ourselves can use we have accomplished nothing particularly significant. Only widespread deployment counts in the long run, and that won't happen without easy installation. As much as I like what Mike Diehl has been working on, I don't consider it complete. The installation is far too tricky. I'm certainly glad he wrote it, and I'm glad he released it so that it can be evaluated on technical grounds, but it's early to say that it's ready for an average user. Eric
On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Brian Beker wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, David Kovar wrote:
This list is allowing itself to be disrupted. More effort is being expended by its members complaining and commenting about LD than he is expending. Ignore the guy and get on with life.
Sorry about the previous incomplete. AM screenstroke hangover. I just wanted to say, let's drop it. It's getting to be too much. David's advice to ignore him is the best I've heard so far.
From: hawkwind@dink.foretune.co.jp Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 16:12:13 +0900 [...] I liken people such to a situation where a group of friends are sitting talking around a fireplace deep in creative discussion and a Felini style circus band starts marching through the room playing at full volume. If this was in your home, you would throw them out; if at a ski lodge, the management would throw them out; if in a public place, the police would disperse them for "disturbing the peace" (have you ever wondered WHY all civilizations have such laws?!?). Yet in cyberspace, people toss out phrases like "freedoms", and "rights" to excuse such behavior apparently without much consideration to the "responsibilities" inherent in those phrases. I have seen a man arrested ostensibly for "disturbing the peace", who was actually just giving a speech. The charges were thrown out. If you don't like free speech, don't log in. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state very clearly that our form of government is based on the recognition of human rights, not responsibilities. You might be able to find a system more to your liking in China or North Korea for a little while longer. At a conference recently, I spent over two hours talking to the fellow who runs a large Moo about exactly this problem. He is also faced with such people (although thankfully not quite so extreme), and his "society" is having a VERY difficult time trying to develop procedures for dealing with such people. He told me about a particularly nasty situation where some girl in his Moo was "virtually raped" by another member. The Moo was horrified, but could not figure out how to deal with the culprit. This is another example of the dilution of the word "rape" until it is utterly meaningless. You cannot rape someone via mail. You can harass them but that is NOT rape. You are demeaning victims of real rapes by using the word in an attempt to justify your authoritarian views. I'm sure that the victim of this harassment was upset and I'm sorry about that, but calling it rape is a load of crapola. [...]
From reading recent postings, I gather that many feel as I once did, that disruptive people will just flame out and go away. And once that was so, but no longer. I have seen over 15 groups laid waste in the past two years by such people. They did not go away, but rather gloated over the deceased corpse of the group. Many of the members of those groups I have not seen again on the nets. I now firmly believe that such chaotic people have to be dealt with and promptly. I am still unclear how to deal with them, but I do know that time is of the essence. The longer they are allowed to pollute your group, the deeper the cancer runs affecting everyone's perspective.
All you have to do is ignore them. Put them in your kill file. It works. If people are just too stupid to use such an obvious tool, then they probably aren't capable of "creative discussion" anyway. Harumph. After all the speech criminals are rounded up, what next? Got any ethnic groups in mind? I look forward to any constructive comments. Andy
Andy Wilson says:
If you don't like free speech, don't log in. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state very clearly that our form of government is based on the recognition of human rights, not responsibilities. You might be able to find a system more to your liking in China or North Korea for a little while longer.
Does free speech mean that I can stand up in the midst of a company meeting and start reciting Hamlet at the top of my voice? No, it does not. It means that THE GOVERNMENT shall not PUNISH people for speaking. It means that PUBLIC PROPERTY may not be sealed off from people with particular opinions. It does NOT mean that speech is permissable everywhere, nor does it obligate private individuals to give opportunities to people to speak. Just because you want to reach millions of people doesn't mean that the New York Times has to give you space to do it, for example. Toad.COM is NOT a public place. Mailing lists are NOT public places. This is the exact equivalent of someone hosting a block party in their yard and discovering that a local bum has decided to deficate in the fruit punch. Censorship is eliminating a person's capacity to speak. This is NOT censorship. The individual in question could send mail to all the list users if he wanted to. He could (and has) started his own mailing list, so thats obviously not prohibited to him. He could post to netnews -- and does. His outlets for speech have obviously not been hindered. Perry
participants (9)
-
Andy Wilson -
Brian Beker -
cman＠caffeine.io.com -
David Kovar -
hawkwind＠dink.foretune.co.jp -
hughes＠ah.com -
Mike Godwin -
Perry E. Metzger -
Philippe Nave