Yep, it's clearly a bit of a dilemma the way you present it. Maybe we should have a specified page/room/forum specifically designated and confined to intelligent discourse, where intrusion posts are immediately removed and continually moderated. Possibly a separate sign in page to the, let's say, upper room. Public access is just that and there are no safety mechanisms in place that would not appear as discrimination or censureship.
On Jul 13, 8:55 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking more of an examination of what we get out of running > through the same old argument with someone over and over again, or > allowing threads to by hijacked off topic again and again by the same > persons anger. The internet group is, in many ways, a new phenomena > and just coming into an age where it can be a productive tool or > inspiration to our lives. But given the number of unbalanced people > using the web for their own agenda, how do we identify them, and > continue to retain something of value? I am not sure it should be > left up to the moderators only, as they will suspect that if the > members continue to engage folks with these behaviors in debate, it > might be acceptable or necessary. > > The pattern I see in this group is that we take turns engaging and > managing attacks and nonsense until the moderators take over. If we > truly get something out of that type of engagement, then the group is > benefiting. There are groups all over the internet involved in flame > wars. It is not uncommon. I sometimes read the comments on u tube > posts and it is apparent that people just have the need to spout off > in irrational and angry ways. I think we have something much more > valuable here, and wonder if we don't lose articulate, intelligent > folks when we engage like this. Do we truly need a Chaz in the group > dynamic? > > Please believe that I am just trying to understand, and find it > somewhat fascinating. But also get quite frustrated when we have some > great threads going and they get lost in the BS. > > On Jul 12, 6:57 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In a sense even though you and I can identify there is nothing we can > > do about it. We all have our style of contribution but group > > consistency sometimes depends upon newcomers fitting in with the > > current core group. If the entire group consisted of e types then > > perhaps you and I would be considered the disruptive ones. > > > On Jul 12, 2:29 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That all sounds good, but I wasn't asking so much for a structure for > > > internet groups for the mentally ill, as I was asking that we consider > > > how, in general, we best deal with group members who display the signs > > > of mental illness and contribute little or disrupt the group dynamic. > > > For example, in this group, we have seen several members come and go > > > who were unable to converse but ready to vehemently argue, bully, > > > flame, etc. The signs of mental illness are as widely variable as the > > > illnesses - the narcissist can only discuss topics as they relate to > > > them and expect the group to conform to their needs, and often brings > > > the focus of the threads back to them. The schizophrenic presents > > > themselves with irregularity and incongruence, often angry. Angry too > > > is the boarder line personality who can also be addicted to rage and > > > jumps on the flaming bandwagon at every chance, but can occasionally > > > contribute something specifically valid. > > > > The list goes on and on. What I am wondering is how, as users of > > > internet groups, we identify these folks and stop them from making the > > > forum unusable by those looking for reasonable discourse, and safety > > > from not irrational venting? At what point does our compassion allow > > > us to feel every persons worth, yet know that some are better off in > > > other venues? > > > > On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There should be an established level for each group within, let's say, > > > > five levels ranging from simple venting to crisis and/or mild to > > > > anything goes. In less extreme areas of mental illness chat groups > > > > provide a sharing forum where the individual meets others allowing for > > > > the individual to drop the isolation curtain while identifying with > > > > others who have similar emotions and expressions. The extreme level > > > > of course may be subject to chaotic activity but then again there is > > > > the option of "one to one" communication between members of the chat > > > > group. The in between levels will allow for an individual to find the > > > > optimal level for the optimal experience. Each level should in some > > > > way provide at all times someone trained in the field of mental > > > > illness in order to identify and categorize what might be a crisis > > > > level participant in a low level group which can ultimately exacerbate > > > > the crisis as the individual increasingly feels that others don't > > > > understand. > > > > > On Jul 12, 12:06 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Before the widespread use of personal computers, suicide hotlines > > > > > performed the community service of giving local community members > > > > > suffering from mental illness an outlet for expression. All hotline > > > > > workers are trained in various mental illness and how to best > > > > > communicate with these callers, maintain call time limits, give local > > > > > resources for further help if needed, and call the local authorities > > > > > in case of an actual suicide consideration. Fact is, calls concerning > > > > > suicide comprised an average of less than 5% of callers to suicide > > > > > hotlines. The other 95% of the calls are from people with various > > > > > mental illnesses, that were not in crisis but felt isolated from > > > > > society and just need an avenue of expression. > > > > > > The advent of online chatrooms brought relief to these hotlines as it > > > > > provided an avenue for those not actually in crisis of contemplating > > > > > suicide, to interact with others and express themselves. This > > > > > alternative community of the online groups offers relief for families, > > > > > communities and the individuals themselves by providing semi social > > > > > environments for interaction. > > > > > > At the same time, it requires legitimate online groups to take on the > > > > > added responsibility of administering the groups to prevent trolling, > > > > > flaming, spamming and other behavior disruptive to the group. This > > > > > behavior can be juvenille, or the result of personality disorders of > > > > > myriad varieties, i.e., those who typically call the crisis hotlines. > > > > > > How far should an online group go in creating an environment of free > > > > > self expression? What boundaries should be set for folks who might be > > > > > better directed to a mental health chat room, where participants > > > > > trained in the communication patterns of the mentally ill can respond > > > > > effectively? The answers obviously depend on the goals and guidelines > > > > > of the group, but in general, what do you think? > > > > > >http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume4... > > > > > >http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/03/30/the_problems_wit... > > > > > >http://www.nowpublic.com/people/adult-cyber-bullying-should-laws-prot... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
