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@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:46 PM To: air-l@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@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/