Known as KASPAR (Kinesics and Synchronisation in Personal Assistant Robotics), the $4.33 million bot smiles, simulates surprise and sadness, gesticulates and, the researchers hope, will encourage social interaction amongst autistic children.
Developed as part of the pan-European IROMEC (Interactive Robotic Social Mediators as Companions ) project, KASPAR has two "eyes" fitted with video cameras and a mouth that can open and smile.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Ubiquitous Computing
http://www.computer.org/pervasive
IEEE Pervasive Computing delivers the latest peer-reviewed developments in pervasive, mobile, and ubiquitous computing to developers, researchers, and educators who want to keep abreast of rapid technology change. With content that's accessible and useful today, the quarterly publication acts as a catalyst for realizing the vision of pervasive (or ubiquitous) computing, described by Mark Weiser nearly a decade ago.
The essence of this vision is the creation of environments saturated with computing and wireless communication, yet gracefully integrated with human users. Many key building blocks needed for this vision are now viable commercial technologies: wearable and handheld computers, high bandwidth wireless communication, location sensing mechanisms, and so on. The challenge is to combine these technologies into a seamless whole. This will require a multidisciplinary approach, involving hardware designers, wireless engineers, human-computer interaction specialists, software agent developers, and so on.
IEEE Pervasive Computing delivers the latest peer-reviewed developments in pervasive, mobile, and ubiquitous computing to developers, researchers, and educators who want to keep abreast of rapid technology change. With content that's accessible and useful today, the quarterly publication acts as a catalyst for realizing the vision of pervasive (or ubiquitous) computing, described by Mark Weiser nearly a decade ago.
The essence of this vision is the creation of environments saturated with computing and wireless communication, yet gracefully integrated with human users. Many key building blocks needed for this vision are now viable commercial technologies: wearable and handheld computers, high bandwidth wireless communication, location sensing mechanisms, and so on. The challenge is to combine these technologies into a seamless whole. This will require a multidisciplinary approach, involving hardware designers, wireless engineers, human-computer interaction specialists, software agent developers, and so on.
Pentagon to Merge Next-Gen Binoculars With Soldiers' Brains
U.S. Special Forces may soon have a strange and powerful new weapon in their arsenal: a pair of high-tech binoculars 10 times more powerful than anything available today, augmented by an alerting system that literally taps the wearer's prefrontal cortex to warn of furtive threats detected by the soldier's subconscious.
In a new effort dubbed "Luke's Binoculars" -- after the high-tech binoculars Luke Skywalker uses in Star Wars -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is setting out to create its own version of this science-fiction hardware. And while the Pentagon's R&D arm often focuses on technologies 20 years out, this new effort is dramatically different -- Darpa says it expects to have prototypes in the hands of soldiers in three years.
The agency claims no scientific breakthrough is needed on the project -- formally called the Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System. Instead, Darpa hopes to integrate technologies that have been simmering in laboratories for years, ranging from flat-field, wide-angle optics, to the use of advanced electroencephalograms, or EEGs, to rapidly recognize brainwave signatures.
In March, Darpa held a meeting in Arlington, Virginia, for scientists and defense contractors who might participate in the project. According to the presentations from the meeting, the agency wants the binoculars to have a range of 1,000 to 10,000 meters, compared to the current generation, which can see out only 300 to 1,000 meters. Darpa also wants the binoculars to provide a 120-degree field of view and be able to spot moving vehicles as far as 10 kilometers away.
The most far-reaching component of the binocs has nothing to do with the optics: it's Darpa's aspirations to integrate EEG electrodes that monitor the wearer's neural signals, cueing soldiers to recognize targets faster than the unaided brain could on its own. The idea is that EEG can spot "neural signatures" for target detection before the conscious mind becomes aware of a potential threat or target.
Darpa's ambitions are grounded in solid research, says Dennis McBride, president of the Potomac Institute and an expert in the field. "This is all about target recognition and pattern recognition," says McBride, who previously worked for the Navy as an experimental psychologist and has consulted for Darpa. "It turns out that humans in particular have evolved over these many millions of years with a prominent prefrontal cortex."
That prefrontal cortex, he explains, allows the brain to pick up patterns quickly, but it also exercises a powerful impulse control, inhibiting false alarms. EEG would essentially allow the binoculars to bypass this inhibitory reaction and signal the wearer to a potential threat. In other words, like Spiderman's "spider sense," a soldier could be alerted to danger that his or her brain had sensed, but not yet had time to process.
That said, researchers are circumspect about plans to deploy the technology. One participant in last month's Darpa workshop, John Murray, a scientist at SRI International, says he thought the technology was feasible "in a demonstration environment," but fielding it is another matter.
"In recent years the ability to measure neural signals and to analyze them quickly has advanced significantly," says Murray, whose own work focuses on human effectiveness. "Typically in these situations, there are a whole lot of other issues (involved) in building and deploying, beyond the research."
It's unclear what the final system will look like. The agency's presentations show soldiers operating with EEG sensors attached helmet-style to their heads. Although the electrodes might initially seem ungainly, McBride says that the EEG technology is becoming smaller and less obtrusive. "It's easier and easier," he says.
But getting the system down to a target weight of less than five pounds will be a challenge, and Darpa's presentations make it clear that size and power are also issues. But even if EEG doesn't make it into the initial binoculars, researchers involved in other areas say there are plenty of improvements to existing technology that can be fielded.
For example, another key aspect of the binoculars will detect threats using neuromorphic engineering, the science of using hardware and software to mimic biological systems. Paul Hasler, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor who specializes in this area and attended the Darpa workshop, describes, for example, an effort to use neural computation to "emulate the brain's visual cortex" -- creating sensors that, like the brain, can scan across a wide field of view and "figure out what's interesting to look at."
While some engineers are mimicking the brain, others are going after the eye. Vladimir Brojavic, a former Carnegie Mellon University professor, specializes in a technology that replicates the function of the human retina to allow cameras to see in shadows and poor illumination. He attended last month's workshop, but he said he was unsure whether his company, Intrigue Technologies, would bid for work on the project. "I'm hesitant to pick it up, in case it would distract us from our product development," he says.
According to the Darpa presentations, the first prototypes of Luke's Binoculars could be in soldiers' hands within three years. That's an ambitious schedule, and an unusual one for Darpa, note several workshop attendees, who also say they expect fierce competition over the project. The list of attendees at the meeting ranged from university professors to major contractors. Spokespeople for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon both confirmed interest in the program, but declined to say whether they would bid on it.
Once fielded, Darpa indicates the measure of success lies with the military. According to information the agency provided to industry, initial prototypes would go to Special Forces. If the military asks to keep the binoculars after the trials, "that's exactly what you want here," Darpa wrote. "That's success."
Why all the rush? "I have to wonder if they aren't under pressure from Congress to make a contribution (to the war on terrorism), or if DOD is really leaning on them to come up with some stuff," suggests Jonathan Moreno, a professor of ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, whose recent book, Mind Wars, looks at the Pentagon's burgeoning interest in neuroscience. Darpa did not respond to press inquiries about the program.
Despite the fast schedule, McBride, of the Potomac Institute, thinks the idea is doable. "It's a risky venture, but that's what Darpa does," he says. "It's absolutely feasible."
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/05/binoculars
In a new effort dubbed "Luke's Binoculars" -- after the high-tech binoculars Luke Skywalker uses in Star Wars -- the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is setting out to create its own version of this science-fiction hardware. And while the Pentagon's R&D arm often focuses on technologies 20 years out, this new effort is dramatically different -- Darpa says it expects to have prototypes in the hands of soldiers in three years.
The agency claims no scientific breakthrough is needed on the project -- formally called the Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System. Instead, Darpa hopes to integrate technologies that have been simmering in laboratories for years, ranging from flat-field, wide-angle optics, to the use of advanced electroencephalograms, or EEGs, to rapidly recognize brainwave signatures.
In March, Darpa held a meeting in Arlington, Virginia, for scientists and defense contractors who might participate in the project. According to the presentations from the meeting, the agency wants the binoculars to have a range of 1,000 to 10,000 meters, compared to the current generation, which can see out only 300 to 1,000 meters. Darpa also wants the binoculars to provide a 120-degree field of view and be able to spot moving vehicles as far as 10 kilometers away.
The most far-reaching component of the binocs has nothing to do with the optics: it's Darpa's aspirations to integrate EEG electrodes that monitor the wearer's neural signals, cueing soldiers to recognize targets faster than the unaided brain could on its own. The idea is that EEG can spot "neural signatures" for target detection before the conscious mind becomes aware of a potential threat or target.
Darpa's ambitions are grounded in solid research, says Dennis McBride, president of the Potomac Institute and an expert in the field. "This is all about target recognition and pattern recognition," says McBride, who previously worked for the Navy as an experimental psychologist and has consulted for Darpa. "It turns out that humans in particular have evolved over these many millions of years with a prominent prefrontal cortex."
That prefrontal cortex, he explains, allows the brain to pick up patterns quickly, but it also exercises a powerful impulse control, inhibiting false alarms. EEG would essentially allow the binoculars to bypass this inhibitory reaction and signal the wearer to a potential threat. In other words, like Spiderman's "spider sense," a soldier could be alerted to danger that his or her brain had sensed, but not yet had time to process.
That said, researchers are circumspect about plans to deploy the technology. One participant in last month's Darpa workshop, John Murray, a scientist at SRI International, says he thought the technology was feasible "in a demonstration environment," but fielding it is another matter.
"In recent years the ability to measure neural signals and to analyze them quickly has advanced significantly," says Murray, whose own work focuses on human effectiveness. "Typically in these situations, there are a whole lot of other issues (involved) in building and deploying, beyond the research."
It's unclear what the final system will look like. The agency's presentations show soldiers operating with EEG sensors attached helmet-style to their heads. Although the electrodes might initially seem ungainly, McBride says that the EEG technology is becoming smaller and less obtrusive. "It's easier and easier," he says.
But getting the system down to a target weight of less than five pounds will be a challenge, and Darpa's presentations make it clear that size and power are also issues. But even if EEG doesn't make it into the initial binoculars, researchers involved in other areas say there are plenty of improvements to existing technology that can be fielded.
For example, another key aspect of the binoculars will detect threats using neuromorphic engineering, the science of using hardware and software to mimic biological systems. Paul Hasler, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor who specializes in this area and attended the Darpa workshop, describes, for example, an effort to use neural computation to "emulate the brain's visual cortex" -- creating sensors that, like the brain, can scan across a wide field of view and "figure out what's interesting to look at."
While some engineers are mimicking the brain, others are going after the eye. Vladimir Brojavic, a former Carnegie Mellon University professor, specializes in a technology that replicates the function of the human retina to allow cameras to see in shadows and poor illumination. He attended last month's workshop, but he said he was unsure whether his company, Intrigue Technologies, would bid for work on the project. "I'm hesitant to pick it up, in case it would distract us from our product development," he says.
According to the Darpa presentations, the first prototypes of Luke's Binoculars could be in soldiers' hands within three years. That's an ambitious schedule, and an unusual one for Darpa, note several workshop attendees, who also say they expect fierce competition over the project. The list of attendees at the meeting ranged from university professors to major contractors. Spokespeople for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon both confirmed interest in the program, but declined to say whether they would bid on it.
Once fielded, Darpa indicates the measure of success lies with the military. According to information the agency provided to industry, initial prototypes would go to Special Forces. If the military asks to keep the binoculars after the trials, "that's exactly what you want here," Darpa wrote. "That's success."
Why all the rush? "I have to wonder if they aren't under pressure from Congress to make a contribution (to the war on terrorism), or if DOD is really leaning on them to come up with some stuff," suggests Jonathan Moreno, a professor of ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, whose recent book, Mind Wars, looks at the Pentagon's burgeoning interest in neuroscience. Darpa did not respond to press inquiries about the program.
Despite the fast schedule, McBride, of the Potomac Institute, thinks the idea is doable. "It's a risky venture, but that's what Darpa does," he says. "It's absolutely feasible."
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/05/binoculars
Sunday, July 15, 2007
ESP: Emotional Social Intelligence Prosthesis
Autism Theory and Technology
MIT Media Lab
Computers, like many individuals with autism, do not naturally have the ability to interpret socio-affective cues such as tone of voice or facial expression. Similarly, computers do not naturally have people sense - common sense about people and the way they operate. When people or machines fail to perceive, understand and act upon social-emotional information, then they are hindered in their ability to interact. For example, deciding when to approach someone, when to interrupt, or when to wind down an interaction, all depend upon knowing how to read and respond appropriately to human social-emotional cues. Inability to read and respond to such cues also affects ability to learn since social-emotional cues are often used to guide attention, reduce complexity, and provide reward or punishment. Inabilities in these areas can also lead to problems in the development of relationships, misunderstandings in communication, and overall increases in frustration arising from long-term non-empathetic interaction. Our research aims to change the nature of technology so that it can sense, respond and communicate social-emotional information, and develop general skills of people sense. In so doing, we have a lot to learn from people with autism, from progress they have made, and from the friends, families, and staff who work with these individuals developing successful strategies for coping with the dynamic interactive challenges of the real world. But our interest goes significantly beyond learning from people with autism and building technology that is less autistic.
This course will lay a foundation in autism theory and autism technology that significantly leverages and expands the Media Lab's ability to pioneer new technology. Students will not only develop new technologies, but also understand, help, and learn from people with autism, a fast-growing group that the CDC identified in the year 2005 as involving an estimated 1 in 150 school age children ages 6-21. Students will gain an understanding of the basic challenges faced by people with autism, together with their families and caregivers, and with an understanding of the fundamental theories that inform therapies and technologies for improving the autistic experience. The course will also explore the converging challenges and goals of autism research and the development of technologies with people sense. We will advance ways technology can be used for early detection and intervention in autism. We will enable new technologies for measuring behavior in people with autism, to enable better theory development through more systematic collection of behavior.
http://affect.media.mit.edu/projectpages/esp/
MIT Media Lab
Computers, like many individuals with autism, do not naturally have the ability to interpret socio-affective cues such as tone of voice or facial expression. Similarly, computers do not naturally have people sense - common sense about people and the way they operate. When people or machines fail to perceive, understand and act upon social-emotional information, then they are hindered in their ability to interact. For example, deciding when to approach someone, when to interrupt, or when to wind down an interaction, all depend upon knowing how to read and respond appropriately to human social-emotional cues. Inability to read and respond to such cues also affects ability to learn since social-emotional cues are often used to guide attention, reduce complexity, and provide reward or punishment. Inabilities in these areas can also lead to problems in the development of relationships, misunderstandings in communication, and overall increases in frustration arising from long-term non-empathetic interaction. Our research aims to change the nature of technology so that it can sense, respond and communicate social-emotional information, and develop general skills of people sense. In so doing, we have a lot to learn from people with autism, from progress they have made, and from the friends, families, and staff who work with these individuals developing successful strategies for coping with the dynamic interactive challenges of the real world. But our interest goes significantly beyond learning from people with autism and building technology that is less autistic.
This course will lay a foundation in autism theory and autism technology that significantly leverages and expands the Media Lab's ability to pioneer new technology. Students will not only develop new technologies, but also understand, help, and learn from people with autism, a fast-growing group that the CDC identified in the year 2005 as involving an estimated 1 in 150 school age children ages 6-21. Students will gain an understanding of the basic challenges faced by people with autism, together with their families and caregivers, and with an understanding of the fundamental theories that inform therapies and technologies for improving the autistic experience. The course will also explore the converging challenges and goals of autism research and the development of technologies with people sense. We will advance ways technology can be used for early detection and intervention in autism. We will enable new technologies for measuring behavior in people with autism, to enable better theory development through more systematic collection of behavior.
http://affect.media.mit.edu/projectpages/esp/
REGARDING RESPONSIBLE ONLINE GROUP MODERATING
In the huddle - dealing with Mary Mary quite contrary
And, thus it is, from time to time, that the Moderator has to banish the contrary poster who fails to understand their behavior is impacting the group, and more importantly, the moderator’s management time.
Groups are private spaces not subject to the legal parameters of "free speech". A group is a community committed, thru a mission statement, to discussion through reason and rational discourse. The interchange of ideas is vital for the function of merchandising ourselves, discovery, and the shared ideals through discussion.
Curtailment of free speech undercuts intellectual freedom that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular ideas, and others the right to listen to unpopular ideas. There is some ambiguity where the lines should be drawn in email based Group forums where there is much diversity culturally, differing educations levels, broad age range bringing on generational differences, and different agenda for each and every participant.
Group Dynamics
Group process starts at a collective level below the sum of the average skills of the Group. As the group matures this process, exponentially, grows. As a collection of people, a group needs to relearn some basic manners and people skills. The group process is a series of changes which occur as a group of individuals form into an operating unit. Understanding that process will allow the changes to be accelerated thru facilitation.
From the individuals perspective there is incentive in belonging to a group as each can participate in the combined resources. The shear number of members soon becomes the prime motivator for people joining the group with the advertised mission being secondary. Along with that, there are individual differences that come to the forefront in the form of discourse on the Group message board along with individual power struggles.
The defining line
The defining line is the mission statement of the Group. As long as that mission statement is clear, then the moderator's task of keeping the forum on tract is simplified.
List disruption is not an uncommon occurrence. Some members revel in their capacity to inflame a situation, create disruptions and take the discussion off on a tangent best suited to their own personal agenda. Behavior that is meant to dishonor a moderator, or member, is contrary to the mission of the Group. It shows grave disrespect for the dignity of others.
The disruption can be in the form of spam, outright flames against one particular member or the group as a whole, a systematic contrary position that is arbitrary in nature and only meant to annoy and harass thru passive aggressive means or a behind the scenes gossiping network. That gossiping network results in constant multiple private emails to the Moderator's email box complaining of the impact of rumors. The poster often uses long emails, off list, to individual members to defend their position that are full of justification and vilifications that present partial facts to substantiate their stance. This type of poster is hard to pinpoint in the beginnings of their campaign but the pattern becomes evident over time.
List moderators need to consider intervention at some point to dispel irresponsible and incendiary responses from appearing on the group board which only serve to disrupt the group process. When the disruption spills over into the private email arena filling the personal email box, the moderator has to consider "time value for money" and make a personal decision as to how much time they want to spend deflecting the actions of one individual versus an entire group that requires time and management. Time and resources allocated to the Group is an inventory item that has to be managed as any other resource and it must be planned, monitored and reviewed just like any other managed process.
The moderator always reserves the right, particularly when the list is a sole proprietorship, to act on messages containing personal attacks or other potentially inflammatory messages meant to disrupt a forum by not posting them and or re-directing them back to the sender. This same policy is also applicable to messages that are out of the confines of the mission statement or messages that are of a personal nature or meant to be used in a personal conflict resolution arena.
Time vs. Value
And, thus it is, from time to time, that the Moderator has to banish the contrary poster who fails to understand their behavior is impacting the group, and more importantly, the moderator’s management time. There are cases where the moderator can discuss the matter with the poster, and sometimes, it will be determined that any intervention, privately, will be used as a lever in further private emails to other selective members vilifying their position. This contrary poster is best dismissed, from the huddle, without notice despite the uproar it might inflict initially on the Group process since they have not been made privy to all the nuances, track history, or other incidents involved in the decision.
Conclusion
In the short term, despite the upheaval, the Group will return to the process of combining resources and continue to provide an innovative solution to networking in cyber space. Groups are no different to relationships - you must work at them constantly. As the membership changes, so does the needs of the group. Also, as the group moves forward collectively, so does the emotional growth of the group move forward, onward and upward in an exponential spiral bringing with it, at a faster rate, the new members, new ideas, and past noted problems are stored as a culmination of the learning experience. All of this is brought about by planned and organized facilitation and moderation - which brings with it the need to make difficult decisions concerning members you have begun to know as a friend.
Kathleen Johnson 10/7/03
http://www.geocities.com/grannywyo//Articles20.html
And, thus it is, from time to time, that the Moderator has to banish the contrary poster who fails to understand their behavior is impacting the group, and more importantly, the moderator’s management time.
Groups are private spaces not subject to the legal parameters of "free speech". A group is a community committed, thru a mission statement, to discussion through reason and rational discourse. The interchange of ideas is vital for the function of merchandising ourselves, discovery, and the shared ideals through discussion.
Curtailment of free speech undercuts intellectual freedom that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular ideas, and others the right to listen to unpopular ideas. There is some ambiguity where the lines should be drawn in email based Group forums where there is much diversity culturally, differing educations levels, broad age range bringing on generational differences, and different agenda for each and every participant.
Group Dynamics
Group process starts at a collective level below the sum of the average skills of the Group. As the group matures this process, exponentially, grows. As a collection of people, a group needs to relearn some basic manners and people skills. The group process is a series of changes which occur as a group of individuals form into an operating unit. Understanding that process will allow the changes to be accelerated thru facilitation.
From the individuals perspective there is incentive in belonging to a group as each can participate in the combined resources. The shear number of members soon becomes the prime motivator for people joining the group with the advertised mission being secondary. Along with that, there are individual differences that come to the forefront in the form of discourse on the Group message board along with individual power struggles.
The defining line
The defining line is the mission statement of the Group. As long as that mission statement is clear, then the moderator's task of keeping the forum on tract is simplified.
List disruption is not an uncommon occurrence. Some members revel in their capacity to inflame a situation, create disruptions and take the discussion off on a tangent best suited to their own personal agenda. Behavior that is meant to dishonor a moderator, or member, is contrary to the mission of the Group. It shows grave disrespect for the dignity of others.
The disruption can be in the form of spam, outright flames against one particular member or the group as a whole, a systematic contrary position that is arbitrary in nature and only meant to annoy and harass thru passive aggressive means or a behind the scenes gossiping network. That gossiping network results in constant multiple private emails to the Moderator's email box complaining of the impact of rumors. The poster often uses long emails, off list, to individual members to defend their position that are full of justification and vilifications that present partial facts to substantiate their stance. This type of poster is hard to pinpoint in the beginnings of their campaign but the pattern becomes evident over time.
List moderators need to consider intervention at some point to dispel irresponsible and incendiary responses from appearing on the group board which only serve to disrupt the group process. When the disruption spills over into the private email arena filling the personal email box, the moderator has to consider "time value for money" and make a personal decision as to how much time they want to spend deflecting the actions of one individual versus an entire group that requires time and management. Time and resources allocated to the Group is an inventory item that has to be managed as any other resource and it must be planned, monitored and reviewed just like any other managed process.
The moderator always reserves the right, particularly when the list is a sole proprietorship, to act on messages containing personal attacks or other potentially inflammatory messages meant to disrupt a forum by not posting them and or re-directing them back to the sender. This same policy is also applicable to messages that are out of the confines of the mission statement or messages that are of a personal nature or meant to be used in a personal conflict resolution arena.
Time vs. Value
And, thus it is, from time to time, that the Moderator has to banish the contrary poster who fails to understand their behavior is impacting the group, and more importantly, the moderator’s management time. There are cases where the moderator can discuss the matter with the poster, and sometimes, it will be determined that any intervention, privately, will be used as a lever in further private emails to other selective members vilifying their position. This contrary poster is best dismissed, from the huddle, without notice despite the uproar it might inflict initially on the Group process since they have not been made privy to all the nuances, track history, or other incidents involved in the decision.
Conclusion
In the short term, despite the upheaval, the Group will return to the process of combining resources and continue to provide an innovative solution to networking in cyber space. Groups are no different to relationships - you must work at them constantly. As the membership changes, so does the needs of the group. Also, as the group moves forward collectively, so does the emotional growth of the group move forward, onward and upward in an exponential spiral bringing with it, at a faster rate, the new members, new ideas, and past noted problems are stored as a culmination of the learning experience. All of this is brought about by planned and organized facilitation and moderation - which brings with it the need to make difficult decisions concerning members you have begun to know as a friend.
Kathleen Johnson 10/7/03
http://www.geocities.com/grannywyo//Articles20.html
The Cyber Lawless Frontier
The nebulous virtual existence of the banned cyber poster.
The internet has outrun the Constitution and has indeed outrun current concepts of free speech. Forums and Message boards have been struggling to find the answer to bad behavior on the internet. Enhanced by anominity, some posters frequently step outside the bounds of decorum and find them selves at odds with Forum Hosts, Moderators and members alike. With prerogatives set by the software manufacturers the Moderators and Forum owners have the ability and are forced to ban posters who harass thru the written word, consistently inflame, disrupt, browbeat, annoy, slander, and generally alienate their fellow man.
Upon banishment
Upon banishment the poster has to vilify and justify their position to fellow posters often thru fair means and foul and a systematic posting of half truths, displacement of blame, and projection. The first line of defense is a tirade of emails to fellow posters on the board, and a campaign of the “poor me syndrome” on Instant Messenger. The net result of such action is that the group becomes caught up in a new phenomenon called “Cyber Gang Mentality” and it fits all the parameters of the modern street gang.
Within short order the gang finds an unmoderated board on which to congregate with the soul purpose to further find their own pleasure by creating displeasure in others, denigrating the persons they hold responsible for their banishment, and with plotting and collusion scheme the demise of the board or boards they have been banished from, or self banished themselves from.
Over the years I have observed several cyber “operating gangs” and usually they congregate in numbers of no less than five but no more than 10. I am not sure what creates the limitation of the group’s growth, or the inability of the Group to maintain no more than 10 or so active members for a limited time span. The group, in time, self destructs due to lack of order and descend into disorganized mayhem. The various and sundry posters dissipate to other boards to, once again, in time, be banned again or find themselves ostracized by their choice of friends.
Net Lists Are Not Public Places
Net message boards, Forums and Bulletin Boards are not public places and are not, therefore, subjected to the application of the rules of “Freedom of Speech”. The lists are private places into which the people freely agree to abide by a set of rules prior to admission. It is these rules that this lawless poster finds constricting to their “style”.
Challenging their peers, the dissident poster is a constant challenge for the moderator and owner of forums . The dissident’s constant incitement and self posturing on the forum is time consuming in that the behavior generates box full of private email, screen falls of Instant Messages with complaints, and lack of productivity on the boards.
Moderator’s Number One Rule
The number one rule for Moderators is to not respond, and do not engage. Often it is difficult, at the onset of their campaign, to recognize the provocation. It is even more difficult to not go into details justifying your action, as moderator, on the board. After all, the moderator is going to be admonished as, of course, everything posted and said by the banished poster is factual - right? Most bullies on boards are desperately seeking attention. Seeking any type of attention and the more public, then that best suits their purposes. First and foremost, take the discussion of your concerns off the board into the private arena. One on one, the provocateur can, sometimes, be reasoned with. But, alas, the seasoned bully will never be tamed and you, as Moderator, will be forced to banish the poster to the land of the cyber lawless.
The Internet is not a lawless frontier
A belief, held by some, is that the internet as a whole is a lawless frontier. Like the inflammatory tales told of the Wild West, the truth is that there were some scoundrels but, on the whole, there were only a very few gunfighters. And so it goes with the internet. There are a few cyber scoundrels out there, but on the whole they are quickly banished anymore into the lawless virtual frontier to dissipate over time.
Overtime the Board under fire returns to calm, order and on topic. From time to time it may be challenged by an anonymous poster from the renegade board who has circumnavigated the block of their ID by creating a new one. But the current members of the board have been alerted to such a possibility and they ignore the posts, the invitations to join them in their campaign, and the renegades find themselves eliminated from the Chat lists as the members tire of their constant agitation. The “Rejection Forums” also, in time, dissipate due to lawlessness and lack of a real rewarding focus.
Kathleen Johnson
9/17/03
Kathleen Johnson works for Primedia.inc as a moderator on the AllExperts Board for About.Inc. Kathleen also owns multiple Groups on Yahoo and has participated online for many years observing and writing articles on Group dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/grannywyo//Article21.html
The internet has outrun the Constitution and has indeed outrun current concepts of free speech. Forums and Message boards have been struggling to find the answer to bad behavior on the internet. Enhanced by anominity, some posters frequently step outside the bounds of decorum and find them selves at odds with Forum Hosts, Moderators and members alike. With prerogatives set by the software manufacturers the Moderators and Forum owners have the ability and are forced to ban posters who harass thru the written word, consistently inflame, disrupt, browbeat, annoy, slander, and generally alienate their fellow man.
Upon banishment
Upon banishment the poster has to vilify and justify their position to fellow posters often thru fair means and foul and a systematic posting of half truths, displacement of blame, and projection. The first line of defense is a tirade of emails to fellow posters on the board, and a campaign of the “poor me syndrome” on Instant Messenger. The net result of such action is that the group becomes caught up in a new phenomenon called “Cyber Gang Mentality” and it fits all the parameters of the modern street gang.
Within short order the gang finds an unmoderated board on which to congregate with the soul purpose to further find their own pleasure by creating displeasure in others, denigrating the persons they hold responsible for their banishment, and with plotting and collusion scheme the demise of the board or boards they have been banished from, or self banished themselves from.
Over the years I have observed several cyber “operating gangs” and usually they congregate in numbers of no less than five but no more than 10. I am not sure what creates the limitation of the group’s growth, or the inability of the Group to maintain no more than 10 or so active members for a limited time span. The group, in time, self destructs due to lack of order and descend into disorganized mayhem. The various and sundry posters dissipate to other boards to, once again, in time, be banned again or find themselves ostracized by their choice of friends.
Net Lists Are Not Public Places
Net message boards, Forums and Bulletin Boards are not public places and are not, therefore, subjected to the application of the rules of “Freedom of Speech”. The lists are private places into which the people freely agree to abide by a set of rules prior to admission. It is these rules that this lawless poster finds constricting to their “style”.
Challenging their peers, the dissident poster is a constant challenge for the moderator and owner of forums . The dissident’s constant incitement and self posturing on the forum is time consuming in that the behavior generates box full of private email, screen falls of Instant Messages with complaints, and lack of productivity on the boards.
Moderator’s Number One Rule
The number one rule for Moderators is to not respond, and do not engage. Often it is difficult, at the onset of their campaign, to recognize the provocation. It is even more difficult to not go into details justifying your action, as moderator, on the board. After all, the moderator is going to be admonished as, of course, everything posted and said by the banished poster is factual - right? Most bullies on boards are desperately seeking attention. Seeking any type of attention and the more public, then that best suits their purposes. First and foremost, take the discussion of your concerns off the board into the private arena. One on one, the provocateur can, sometimes, be reasoned with. But, alas, the seasoned bully will never be tamed and you, as Moderator, will be forced to banish the poster to the land of the cyber lawless.
The Internet is not a lawless frontier
A belief, held by some, is that the internet as a whole is a lawless frontier. Like the inflammatory tales told of the Wild West, the truth is that there were some scoundrels but, on the whole, there were only a very few gunfighters. And so it goes with the internet. There are a few cyber scoundrels out there, but on the whole they are quickly banished anymore into the lawless virtual frontier to dissipate over time.
Overtime the Board under fire returns to calm, order and on topic. From time to time it may be challenged by an anonymous poster from the renegade board who has circumnavigated the block of their ID by creating a new one. But the current members of the board have been alerted to such a possibility and they ignore the posts, the invitations to join them in their campaign, and the renegades find themselves eliminated from the Chat lists as the members tire of their constant agitation. The “Rejection Forums” also, in time, dissipate due to lawlessness and lack of a real rewarding focus.
Kathleen Johnson
9/17/03
Kathleen Johnson works for Primedia.inc as a moderator on the AllExperts Board for About.Inc. Kathleen also owns multiple Groups on Yahoo and has participated online for many years observing and writing articles on Group dynamics.
http://www.geocities.com/grannywyo//Article21.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
