It's a slippery slope, Molly, no pun intended.
On Jul 13, 9:19 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please don't think I am advocating for an exclusionary group, dear
> Slip. But I do wonder at the dynamic here. I know the admin does a
> stellar job and am always grateful. Human behavior has always been
> fascinating to me, especially my own. We often walk in the shadow
> areas together and this may be one of those times. I hope you don't
> mind my wondering out loud. I was also wondering if anyone else sees
> what I see...another of my past times. Thanks for playing Slip.
>
> On Jul 13, 10:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
