BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Interacting with difficult posters who (we suspect) are mentally unwell

  
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Ganesh
00:40 / 26.08.06
Ganesh, the above is quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

I disagree. But, since we're increasingly returning to how the ShadowSax thread was managed (and I'm taking Flyboy's and Lurid's 'two issues' comments on board), I don't think I'll respond here. Would you mind, Mr Disco, if I cut & pasted at least some of the specifically ShadowSax-related stuff to the Post-banning discussion thread, and addressed it there?

You're free to make whatever assessments of a situation you like. But others are also free to make assessments of a situation, which may differ from yours, and they are also free to question the utility of those assessments. Right?

Yes - but within the specific context of a time-limited 'trial' thread, I'd really like it if there were an attempt to allow all approaches without the sort of 'apologist' criticism that arose. I was hopeful that, by explaining the rationale underpinning my own approach (which was, as I say, attuned to the possibility that there might be mental illness factors at play), it might become clear that, actually, it wasn't driven by apologism or a simple urge to be 'nice'.

'Questioning' is one thing, but I think the 'apologism' suggestions went beyond that. If you're fine with me taking it to the post-banning thread, I'll talk about it further there.

Now, no-one is suggesting ShadowSax was psychitic, so echoing Flyboy, I'm not sure why he's being broughtup as an example.

Actually, I'm suggesting it as a possibility - or, at least, I'm not discounting it. I didn't get a strong flavour of current psychosis, certainly, but something presumably led to ShadowSax's inflexibility, and I don't think past illness can be excluded.

Which is beside the point, really. He's brought up as an example of how pressure to reach a particular conclusion made it difficult for those of us interested in assessing his psychological state and capacity to change to carry out those assessments. All I'm saying here, really, is that I think it's important to consider/assess that particular dimension: I don't expect everyone to get involved in systematically assessing mental stability/flexibility, but I'd be really grateful if I could be afforded the space to do so in similar cases, in future. I'm hopeful, at least, that if people are aware that this is one of my priorities, my engagement with problematic posters in 'trial threads' might not invoke the same ire in quite the same way.

But when the only behaviours a person demonstrates include sexist/racist/homophobic frothing at the mouth, over a long period of time (as with all the people we've banned, AFAIK, with one exception), you can't assume that this person is any other way.

Wellll, "only behaviours", "frothing at the mouth" and "over a long period of time" are moveable courses in that ol' moveable feast, aren't they? In the cases of almost everyone who's been banned, I'd argue that it hasn't been that clear-cut or well-established. Not by my own analysis of the behaviours involved, anyway.
 
 
Ganesh
00:47 / 26.08.06
I was never trying to "obstruct" Ganesh, either, because I didn't perceive Ganesh as actively intending to prevent ShadowSax from being banned...

And I wasn't - but my own method of assessing psychological capacity involved engaging in a polite dialogue with ShadowSax, and I did feel that was made rather harder for me by the 'why are people even bothering to talk to this piece of filth?' atmosphere. That may not have been intended to be obstructive, but it felt that way.

I'm really unsure whether to continue this particular discussion here (where it overlaps with the idea of assessing mental illness/capacity, and how best that assessment might be facilitated) or whether it relates specifically to the ShadowSax situation, and is best placed in the post-banning thread. Any preference?
 
 
Ganesh
18:27 / 04.10.06
I'm bouncing this because much recent discussion in the Conflict and complaint thread seems, by and large, not to register the possibility that mental illness - amongst other things - might be a factor where someone's posting behaviour appears, suddenly, to have changed. I'm not saying this is the case here, specifically, but I suppose I'd like it if the possibility occurred to people, at least as often as "trolling" or "attention-seeking".

More anon.
 
 
Spaniel
19:23 / 04.10.06
Well, I seem to remember PW describing his life in less than fun terms recently. Can't remember precisely where, possibly the miserable thread. Proves nothing, of course, but perhaps worth mentioning.
 
 
Ganesh
19:28 / 04.10.06
I don't particularly want to discuss ParanoidWriter here specifically. I suppose I'm more concerned that we still seem much more ready to accept explanations like "trolling" or "attention-seeking" than to countenance other possibilities - even when someone has previously shown an ability to post in a more measured, constructive, coherent way.
 
 
StarWhisper
09:10 / 21.10.06
Ganesh may I ask what your qualifictions are?
 
 
Ganesh
09:11 / 21.10.06
MBChB MRCPsych.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:20 / 21.10.06
Before anyone feels the need, there's an anti-psychiatry thread in the Head Shop which would appreciate your comments.
 
 
StarWhisper
09:24 / 21.10.06
Sorry Ganesh, I don't know quite what all those letters and numbers mean. I have a vague idea, but could you elucidate if you don't mind?
 
 
StarWhisper
09:47 / 21.10.06
If that sounded rude I really didn't mean it to, just curious is all.
 
 
Ganesh
14:01 / 21.10.06
Basically, a degree in Medicine/Surgery and post-graduate specialisation in Psychiatry. Apologies; I'd assumed that, if you were asking after my qualifications, you'd be anticipating an answer in those terms.
 
 
Papess
19:13 / 21.10.06
It is quite brave of you to try and tackle this issue, Ganesh. I have to say I was almost offended at first, but I read the whole thread, and I think I understand what you are trying to articulate. I really appreciate Xoc's point of view on this as well.

I think we have two separate threads here. One of those is aboout dealing with people who might suffer from psychotic illness.The other is about people being free to deal with people whom other people are accusing of unacceptable behaviour in a non-confrontational fashion - which might have a diagnostic function or might not - without then being accused themselves.-Haus

That is a good point. There are definately two situations here. I am going to try and address both.

First...

Maybe this would be helpful for reference...Here is a list of ways to identify a sociopath.

That being said, I think we all have been guilty of displaying at least some of those behaviours, even if in jest, when we take into account ass-candling, faceknives, and the Pandora's Box that is the Temple.

I think the objection is to the inbalances within the full scope of a poster's contributions to the community, correct? There is a difference between mental unwellness and someone who is psychotic beyond the capacity of Barbelith or themselves, for help. Which, would be the practical matter at hand.

People sometimes become mentally unwell, and it may be in their best interest to stop posting. Taking a break is what someone who is ultimately reasonable does. If they cannot reasonably make this decision then, what I understand - and correct me if I am wrong Ganesh - but it proposed that this decision is made for them. (As in some sort of private tribunal, perhaps? I am not certain how it would be done, or even if it should be. I am just trying to clarify my understanding of the matter.)

Also, I mention taking a break, rather than out right banning as one possible option. Perhaps, a period of "mental health days" for poster distress? Of course, if the behavior persists, then it is unpleasent for everyone and maybe banning is the way to go, eventually.

Whatever the consequence, the approach is the key, if I understand correctly what you are saying, Ganesh. That Barbelithers need to keep in mind that when dealing with people on the board we do not know, we may be dealing with extremely unreasonable and possibly psychotic/sociopathic people. We should keep this awareness with us, and realise how we (supposedly of sound mind) may effect others who could possibly be mentally unwell, or even psychotic.

If I am understanding correctly, then this is an elevated sense of conscientiousness, unprecedented here at Barbelith, imho. We could to use that type of conscientiousness in our practical strategies, as well. The fact that most of us are *NOT doctors or psychologists should oblige us to use caution and even compassion when dealing with others.

*(Not to say that doctors shouldn't use caution and commpassion too!)
 
 
sleazenation
19:19 / 21.10.06
And putting those terms into google you'll find your question answered immediately.
 
 
Ganesh
19:42 / 21.10.06
That's pretty much along the lines of what I'm saying, Electrix, yes. I have seen boards where there've been people posting who, it's generally accepted, are not terribly well. In one case, there's an individual who talks about being Asperger's but also very clearly has bouts of paranoia, the combination meaning she has a tendency to take offence easily and post lengthy rambles or "I'm leaving" ultimatums. I found her quite irritating, and was amazed at how the board, as a whole, tolerated her. The first time she posted, I perceived her as annoyingly manipulative and posted something snippy. I was PMed by a moderator who explained the poster's background and gently requested that I take account of that in my responses to her. They didn't ask me to self-edit, but I did.

Point being, I suppose, that, on the board I'm talking about, people did take account of this poster's situation. The moderators did keep her in check - they edited out references to self-harm, for example - but there seemed to be a consensus that, at times, it was better to pull back, avoid poking her with sticks, and allow her to burn herself out.

Now, I understand that this may well be highly atypical and could be perceived as a particularly indulgent way of handling someone. The board in question was smaller than this one, and perhaps it's something that only works on smaller boards and with posters who, over time, become known to the community, mental health issues and all. I suppose I was impressed that, in that case, the Asperger's/paranoid poster had become a valued, even central contributor to the community. It would've been all too easy, the first time they'd started posting in a difficult or challenging way, to label them a troll and boot them out.

I'll restate that I'm not asking people to develop professional diagnostic skills, and I'm aware that there are pitfalls to taking an individualistic approach to apparently trollsome behaviour. I'd just like us to not immediately think "troll - there's no point trying to interact with this person in any way" in some circumstances.

Haven't yet checked out the link above, but I'd point out that sociopathy's not exactly what I was thinking of here...
 
 
Papess
13:10 / 22.10.06
Ganesh, your approach rings of civility, refinement and tolerance. (Quite an example of tolerance you gave, btw.) I think it is a mighty big plate to step up to for any group. I think it is possible Barbelith has the capacity to do this, though.

For me, there is something unsettling about people reacting in a negative way to what could possibly be mental unwellness or psychosis. It gets hard to tell those behaviors (the reactions from the unwellness) apart after a while.

A little more insight and forethought could do wonders. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make it work practically. Thanks for trying, however.
 
 
Scarlett_156
17:09 / 12.03.07
This board has under 6,000 members, most of whom very likely don't post on a regular basis. I belong and am a donator to the saltinez, a site that has 18,000-plus members. (I was a moderator there for awhile, but quit.) Until the "Tribe of the 5th Aeon" discussion group on chaosmagic.com got shut down, I was a member of that as well-- they had members in the tens of thousands, don't know how many exactly and now I can't check because they are gone. I belong to many other internet forums, just mentioning these two in particular because of my close involvement with them.

Anyway, not to go on and on-- my contribution to this topic is the observation that there are as many different notions of what constitutes "sane/insane" as there are about what "freedom of speech" really is. Someone very early on in this topic said that "posts should be moderated, not members" and that's basically the way it should be.

If a post breaks the site rules then deleting it should not be a complicated process. If something is on the fringes of what is acceptable to the site owners/administrators then perhaps more discussion is warranted. In looking over the various boards on this site, it seems that nearly every section has more than four or five moderators. With that many people watching the store, weeding out objectionable content should be a fairly smooth process... no?

As far as how I respond to creepy weirdos on internet discussion forums: I ignore them. If I'm a moderator I message the person and tell him that he's breaking the rules, that I'm watching him, and that I expect to see a change in the nature and/or content of his posts or he will be banned. If he defies me then I ban him.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:38 / 12.03.07
Your innocence is adorable, Scarlett, and your optimism commendable. However, moderation functions rather differently here on Barbelith. Check out the FAQ on distributed moderation for details.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
22:20 / 12.03.07
If he defies me then I ban him.
Obey the moderator
 
 
Princess
22:31 / 12.03.07
That was...


...interesting.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:44 / 12.03.07
Darlings, we've had a fair number of recent new joiners. Could we help to give them an idea of how threads are meant to work, ideally, in the Policy? Maximum focus, minimum threadrot, sort of thing?
 
 
Jack Denfeld
22:57 / 12.03.07
Sorry (it is a bad ass moderator jam though)
Here are a couple of links on the problems with Barbelith Banning.
here ya go

and one more

Banning here has never really been as simple as one moderator warning someone not to do something, and then just immediately hitting some kind of ban button.
 
 
*
18:18 / 15.03.07
In fact, in this case (and I'm sorry to drag all this up again, Netaungrot) I found the existance of clearly-written and meaningful posts actually compounded my sense of frustration and anger. That Netaungrot evidently could communicate well and contribute meaningfully when he chose to do so made me tend to interpret his more recent posting style as a deliberate attempt to obscure ideas rather than communicate them and to generate frustration and ill-feeling in the rest of the group.

Not to drag this out or pick on either Mordant or Netaungrot, but that someone can communicate clearly at one time does not mean they are capable of doing so at another. See here for a well-put example. We only have our history of interactions with posters to go on, but it would be good if we could also try to bear this tendency in mind.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:52 / 15.03.07
In that particular case (without wanting to poke Netaungrot) there were certain other cues in place that lead me to interpret the form of communication being used at that time as being a deliberate personal choice rather than symptomatic of a passing inability to communicate in any other way. I'm still minded to interpret it as a choice, since that's how Netaungrot has represented it, although in light of his subsequent assertions I am prepared to accept that my subjective reading of his motives was incorrect.

Having said all that, id, I do take your point. In a way I kind of am one of those posters. I may not be autistic, I may not experience the very extreme levels of distress that a "Joan" would in the course of trying to front it like a neurotypical, but bluntly I have a metric fuckload of psychiatric and neurological problems that affect my ability to communicate at different times, in different ways, and to different degrees. Some of these problems manifest as simple cognitive impairment, where I don't properly process what I've read and may repeat something that an earlier poster has written (sometimes on the same page), fail to realise that something was intended as a joke, or just plain misunderstand completely what was being said. Normally this just makes me look a bit of a muppet, but if I'm on a severe downswing or am emotionally distressed I can interpret the most innocuous comment as hostile and lash out at someone who really doesn't deserve it. I've touched on the cognitive aspect here, and the emotional/psychological aspect here.

In my posting, there are a lot of times when I have to suppress a powerful urge to go off into a string of puns, rhymes, and abstruse word associations. It's frequently a real struggle to drag my brane back onto the rails, to get into a space where I'm communicating in a reasoned, effective way rather than dishing up word-salad. This is particularly the case when the subject is magic or spirituality--the temptation to wander off into fractal curls of language in an attempt to express what I mean is almost overmastering at times. I find I forget what I was on about and go off on all kinds of tangents, and fall into unhelpful, unecessarily complex ways of speaking.

The fact that I have these experiences (more and more as I get older) means that I am aware that other people have them too, and I try to keep that awareness floating around the forefront of my mind these days. However, the fact that I have these experiences is also one reason why deliberate obfuscation makes me so very, very angry. I have to strive really hard, I have to fight constantly, to get what I'm saying across, to be something other than a big fat joke. When I see some idiot write a post entirely in l33tspeak "to make you all have to think for a change", when I see someone deliberately twist and deliberately misinterpret post after post for shits and giggles, when I see someone making lengthy posts in a fake-kerrrazyee (or dizZy) style, I feel just the same as I would if I saw someone deliberately faking an epileptic fit just to get attention: irritated, disgusted, hurt, and not terribly inclined to be patient.
 
 
*
17:21 / 16.03.07
I agree, and I hope you don't mind (much) that I used what you said there as an example.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:40 / 16.03.07
I don't mind at all. I just think it's important to be very clear about the distinction between a person who is able to communicate effectively some of the time but not all of the time, and someone who is perfectly capable of plain speech and ready communication but who chooses to adopt an artificially obfuscatory style.
 
 
Slim
04:49 / 20.04.07
So where did Epop fall on the mentally unwell scale?
 
 
ghadis
07:46 / 20.04.07
I really don't see any point in trying to start up a discussion about Epop and his mental health. Just as i don't see any point in raking up his myspace page or other web presence to point fingers at and chuckle (as has happned on other threads). It seems quite childish and leaves a nasty taste in my mouth to be honest. He's gone now and is not here to discuss aspects of his mental health so i think people should respect that.
 
 
Slim
10:08 / 20.04.07
Fair enough.

I intended to begin assessment of Barbelith's reaction to a mentally unwell poster in light of this thread with my previous post. However, I did a poor job in clarifying that.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply