Request for member withdrawal

[Victor Steinbok]

I used to participate in a number of lists on a variety of topics. The
lists ranged from fully moderated to unmoderated, but the problem of
destructive discourse was present on all of them. One problem with
banning members for their verbal offenses is that it tends to take the
level of discourse down a notch, not the least of causes being members'
awareness of the possibility of being banned and choosing to avoid any
kind of controversy by staying silent. And the censorship debates are
not limited to rude or offensive behavior. In particular, there is a
bizarre kind of troll, roaming various math and physics related lists,
by the name of Osher Doctorow. What this particular person does is
simply post his ultra-long-winded philosophical musings (on quantum
physics, among other topics) that are completely irrelevant to the
content and purpose of the list where he publishes them. But even if the
contents were somehow relevant, this would still amount to academic
spam. Some lists tried to ban the guy, but he would just move on to
another list. At one point someone actually tracked down his posts to
about 60 different list, all of which found the posts baffling and
annoying. But the ultimate solution is simply to block the guy from your
own mailbox--it may not be most efficient, but it is certainly least
intrusive. And under no circumstances should trolls be fed--it only
invites them to get rude and ends up getting others into trouble.

This is a fine solution for lists with stable membership. But when new
members see posts by the trolls without being aware of the background,
they may get engaged. I noticed a couple of replies over the past couple
of months politely--or not so politely--telling newcomers not to engage
TZ. When I joined the list, I received similar comments as well. In my
experience, these warnings work better and carry more weight if offered
in private. Posting public warnings often only provokes further reactions.

However, preferring the quiet option is not an excuse to oppose outright
bans. Some cases are too egregious to ignore. So if there is significant
support for a ban, that is the appropriate course. But it seems that
this list--at least so far--functions far better than most, despite the
mix of professionals and amateurs. Occasionally people get upset and
either vent or leave--and sometimes even come back. But, for the most
part, the discourse is perfectly civil, even when dripping with sarcasm.
It is clear that everyone--even people who advocate for it--see the ban
as an extraordinary remedy. This situation is not likely to reappear in
the near future. And this is not a democracy--it will be ultimately up
to the list managers to choose the remedy. Until that decision is made,
I support the removal, in principle. But I would not be upset if it did
not happen--we all have other options.

     VS-)

On 1/21/2010 12:08 PM, Dennis Baron wrote:
> ...Those archives confirmed my first impression, that Truespell's posts
> seem to me to remain generally disconnected from most ADS-l discourse,
> and he seems utterly unaware that his own serious lack of audience
> awareness can cause problems.
>
> A little googling shows that Truespell has also been trolling English-
> teacherly websites, also in the hopes of promoting his fanatic
> spelling scheme, though apparently on those sites he hasn't generated
> much discussion among participants -- it's clear that he's not a
> teacher, and never has been, but is instead a retired civil servant
> with time on his hands and a need to write letters to the editor.
>
> It's interesting to see how online communities regulate member
> behavior -- everything from rational discussions about the
> appropriateness of expulsion or censure to open flaming to off-list
> counseling. Fortunately, email programs typically allow users to
> create "rules" to block unwanted email or route it directly to the
> trash. On an open list like ADS-l, that may be the most effective way
> to deal with such posts. The other option is to close the list. Asking
> a troller to withdraw tends not to be very effective, since one goal
> of trollers is to promote discord and to get discussants to move off
> topic.
>
> Over the years I've learned to respond to nutty email the same way
> that I used to respond to nutty snail mail before it: don't engage the
> person in discussion, because they see even a negative response as an
> invitation for continued contact. I  keep a file of the hate mail,
> both paper and electronic, that I sometimes receive in response to op
> ed essays on language issues -- yes, linguists getting hate mail, what
> a concept! -- things like "you shouldn't be allowed to teach" or
> "you've obviously never been in a classroom" or, my favorite, in
> response to an essay about multilingualism, "when the revolution
> comes, comrade Baron, your ass is mine!" --  but I've learned not to
> respond to the senders, even senders who seem just a tad rational,
> because it turns out that they're not rational at all, just high-
> functioning when they take their meds.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org