[Air-l] Trolls

[Julie Cohen]

Charles, I'm neither an ethicist nor an expert on the world's religions.
At present many of my guiding principles are derived from parenting.
Here are the relevant two:

1)  Learning acceptable behavior is hard and backsliding is inevitable.
It should be addressed gently but firmly, and with a minimum of fuss.
I.e., if you freak out every time your kid sticks his finger up his
nose, he'll do it even more often just to watch you bounce off the
ceiling.  Good behavior, such as attempts to engage others in a
constructive manner, should be rewarded.

2)  If it reminds me of something I might hear from my 4-year-old
("Mommy, James took my toy.  Mommy, Jeremy called me a poopyhead."), I
don't want to hear it on this or any other list.

The pseudonymity thing doesn't bother me at all in the context of this
list, because I don't think this particular organization needs to rely
on the kind of trust you describe.  None of us is a shrinking violet; we
all have experience publishing and standing behind our own words.  For
me, at least, whether I remain a member of this list has almost nothing
to do with trust and almost everything to do with whether I think it is
wasting my time.  More generally, I think your middle category is really
just the first category in disguise (if you call your kid a
"pseudo-nose-picker" nobody is going to be under any illusion about what
you really called him).

Best, Julie

-----Original Message-----
From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org
[mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 PM
To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Trolls


Three comments.

1) Many of us tried the forgiveness and understanding route early on - I
would be happy to share with you off-list some of the vitriol we got for
our
trouble. 
Beyond what those responses may suggest regarding the chances of needed
changes in behavior -
what I find interesting is that we now have a kind of in-between the two
poles you suggest - i.e., once a troll, always a troll vis-a-vis
trollish
behavior that can be amended and forgiven.
>From my perspective, a useful name for this is the pseudo-troll - both
because the one-time troll both now strays into troll-like behavior and
because the one-time troll hides behind a pseudonym.
>From the standpoint of ethical analysis, this is a helpful point to
make
because it points us beyond the either/or that lurks - however
unintentionally - behind your manifestly well-intentioned distinction,
leaving us with the pointed question: what to do with the in-between of
the
pseudo-troll?

2)  While I'm generally inclined to head in the direction of forgiveness
and
compassion - more than once, but not, sorry to say, the "70 x 7"
commanded
by Jesus; and thereby open to the possibility of helping a recovering
troll
learn and practice better behavior -
where I find an ethical complication here has to do with the use of a
pseudonym.
As lots and lots of studies articulate what many of us know from long
experience - trust is essential in communication per se, and in the
online
environment, trust is even more essential while simultaneously all the
more
fragile.  
Many of us have plenty of war stories - and I can also cite studies, if
need
be - of lists being destroyed by pseudonymous writers who gain the trust
of
participants: once their real identities are discovered/revealed,
oftentimes
a critical mass of participants lose the trust essential to further
participation in the list, and the list simply dissolves.

My concern, then, with pseudonymous "participants" - whatever their
intentions and hopes for recovery - is that it seems abundantly clear
that
pseudonymous "participants" threaten the trust levels required to
sustain a
list.

3) Moreover, if we're genuinely concerned about forgiveness and
compassion
fostering a movement beyond destructive behaviors - then, as most
ethical
and religious frameworks recognize (and, FWIW, AA rightly emphasizes) -
such
recovery will only begin when one takes clear and public responsibility
for
one's behavior.  
Hiding behind a pseudonym, it seems to me, does not encourage movement
in
that direction.

Hence I worry that opening up the list to participation from behind a
pseudonym, however right and noble the motives are of justifying this in
the
name of helping someone move towards more appropriate behavior on the
list,
is countered by the risk of such participation to the trust levels
essential
to fruitful conversation online.

What the are the chances of recovery, on the one hand?  What are the
chances
of damaging trust levels, on the other hand?

Suggestions for how we might decide in the face of the these two
competing
possible outcomes of allowing pseudonymous participation on the list
would
be welcome!

Cordially,
charles ess


Distinguished Research Professor,
Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21>
Drury University
900 N. Benton Ave.              Voice: 417-873-7230
Springfield, MO  65802  USA       FAX: 417-873-7435
Home page:  http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html

Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy
Research,
School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee
<http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ethics.html>
Co-Editor, International Journal of Internet Research Ethics
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire.html
Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org>
Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org>
Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes
<http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php>

Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23



_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/