Subject: private feedback vs. public embarassment

From: [email-masked] (Paul Resnick)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 05:36:23 -0800

> I think there are two kinds of situations leading to the types of abuse we're
> discussing:
>  - well-meaning people aren't getting adequate feedback as to how they come
>    across
>  - people take advantage of the distancing provided by computer media to 
>    behave in ways they always wanted to but normally wouldn't.
> I don't have any feel for the relative prevalence of these two causes.  But
> in both cases more visibility for people's negative reactions would help.

Yes. The feedback needs to be different in the two cases, however. Case 1 calls
for private feedback, case 2 for public embarrassment, filtering, or gagging.

-Paul-

---

From: [email-masked] (Foobar Spam)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 08:42:47 -0800

> > I think there are two kinds of situations leading to the types of abuse
> > we're discussing:
> Yes. The feedback needs to be different in the two cases, however. Case 1
> calls for private feedback, case 2 for public embarrassment, filtering, or
> gagging.

Public embarrassment?
I have never found that to be a workable alternative in any relationship,
much less a VR relationship. It always escalates the situation. To illustrate,
if you have USENET newsgroups, go to the ca.politics newsgroup, and post
an article in favor of confiscation by the government of privately owned
assault weapons. When an aggressive net personality responds with something 
like "Only an idiot would propose such a thing" or some other personal insult, 
try to embarrass them publically into silence.

If our goal is to promote online communities and as much of a violence
and abuse free VR society as possible, I don't see public embarrassment
as being compatible. 

I also see the filter approach as being not necessarily the best way of
solving the problem, which is that communication is in a "conflict mode".
The purpose of the software filters basically boil down to choosing
a subset of all available messages based on some selection criteria. 
Such tools are perfect for their real purpose, but are they really 
the best means of modifying behavior, or resolving ego/turf based conflicts?

If I look at my RL marriage, and apply the "filter" approach to my wife 
during an argument, it would look something like this:

Peggy: blah blah blah blah blah

Chris: (plugging ears) I'm not listening to you.

Peggy: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Chris: (ears still plugged) I'm not listening to you.

Peggy: (storms out of room, totally furious now)

Eh? I shudder at the thought.
As Pavel points out, in some types of conflicts, filtering out
would not even be a form of protection.

After saying all that, maybe it would be good to contact Wayne at sfnet
to hear more about his experiences. Does the @gag on LambdaMOO inform
a person or object being gagged when it has been engaged, Pavel? I
see that ours (using the Lambda core db) does not.

I'll try giving wayne a call. (noting that one of the problems with pure
chat systems is that sending email is not possible...) 

ccn

-- 
	"This looks like a good place to pitch camp. 
	 Art's too subtle for these swine..."
			-Knuckle Buckalo

	          [email-masked]

---

From: Pavel Curtis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1993 11:50:28 -0800

> Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 1993 08:42:47 -0800
> From:	[email-masked] (Foobar Spam)
> 
> Does the @gag on LambdaMOO inform a person or object being gagged when it has
> been engaged, Pavel?

No, though I thought about doing something like this after hearing Wayne at
DIAC, I never did get around to it.

	Pavel