roundtable: re: provocateurs

roundtable: re: provocateurs

re: provocateurs

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:44:20 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:44:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: re: provocateurs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950306172933.11184A-100000@unicorn>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950310103759.22068B-100000@access2.digex.net>


Ransdell's post restates the obvious: protection of free expression 
does not solve the problem of enlightened discussion, nor offer 
protection against determined provocateurs.  Turning the problem over 
to a "moderator" is too easy any answer, however.  We need a more 
rigorous experiment design to deal with this situation, I think.  vs

Vigdor Schreibman
<fins@access.digex.net>


On Tue, 7 Mar 1995, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
> 
> It is not possible to solve the provocateur problem simply by resorting 
> to the delete key or by cultivating civility or by trying to answer 
> them reasonably or by challenging their sincerity as members or by 
> anything else the members of the list might do.  The provocateurs can, 
> if they wish, flood the list with violent posts seemingly from different 
> regular members but actually from only a few or even a single provocateur 
> with multiple list identities.  (I don't know how they do this but 
> apparently it is not particularly difficult to forge an identity in that 
> way and seem to be posting from someplace else.) So regardless of how 
> astute the authentic members are, the list will be poisoned if they wish 
> to poison it.  This is why it is essential that the list managers handle 
> it, and the regular list members should simply let them do so and not 
> keep responding to the provocations. 
> 
> If the list managers are not competent to the task then that is the end 
> of the list if the provocateurs want it that way.  This should be 
> impressed on anybody who wants to start a new list of the sort that the 
> provocateurs might want to poison. 
> 
> To avoid a possible misunderstanding: I am talking about *management* 
> of the list, not *moderation* of the discussion.  To fall back on the 
> moderated list is to capitulate to the provocateurs.  They are 
> interested in shutting down public forums, and a public forum is not 
> the same as a moderated discussion group. I see no good reason why they 
> should be allowed to close these fora down.  All that is required to 
> neutralize these attempts is a grasp of the fact that it is *primarily* 
> a list management problem, and of course a readiness on the manager's 
> part to act appropriately when necessary.  As I stressed in my previous 
> post, though, it is not exclusively that; for if the legitimate list 
> members do not understand the problem, too, some of them will 
> inevitably though unwittingly cooperate with the provocateurs by 
> trying to handle it themselves and thus simply replicate the 
> provocateur through their own actions, and the list manager may be 
> unable to get control of the situation in that case. 
> 
> Joseph Ransdell
> <ransdell@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu>

[CNI Home Page]