Re: Viele auf der Liste bilden gemeinsam das "Phaenomen C." (was: Re: [ox] Der "Durchblicker" C.)
- From: Graham Seaman <graham opencollector.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:09:27 -0400
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:02:09PM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Stefan Merten wrote:
3 days ago Florian v Samson wrote:
Seit Monaten fasziniert mich an der deutschen Liste _nur_ noch die
vielfaeltigen Reaktionen auf Cristoph Reuss, die fuer mich das
eigentliche "Phaenomen C." bilden; _nicht_ er, denn er ist eine
Allerweltserscheinung, zumindest in "linken" Kreisen.
Absolute Zustimmung. Allerdings widert es mich eher an als dass es
mich fasziniert. Wohl zu oft erlebt...
Ein weiterer ein wichtiger Punkt ist für mich, dass *niemensch* hier
auf der Liste *wirksame* Maßnahmen gegen das allgemein wahrgenommene
Problem unternommen hat - und ich meine das läuft ja jetzt schon eine
ganze Weile. Es gibt zwar einige, die das Problem leugnen (aka
Filter-Fans), aber damit stehlen sie sich letzlich lediglich nur aus
der Verantwortung.
[apologies for the inappropriate use of English on this list, and also if
this topic has been covered before - I haven't read much of the list for a
while, not surprisingly]
One possible explanation is that this is an experimental illustration of the
Reuss's 'will to victimhood' thesis applied to mailing lists rather than
nations (http://www.iac-research.ch/). ox has chosen to be a victim. ox-en
on the other hand has simply ignored the invitation to victimhood, partly
because it has better things to do, partly because it exists less than ox
did at the start of the attack.
Since virtual groups have historically been so vulnerable to social engineering
attacks, it would be useful to have more of an idea which groups have withstood
which types of attack, and why. I'm not thinking of the 'technical' solutions
(moderation, terminating the group, etc) but the social ones - degree of
coherence, degree of focus on a common task, overlap with real-world activities,
etc. Unfortunately all the analyses I've seen of this kind of thing have
made the mistake of lumping completely different attacks together as 'trolling'
(eg. the wikipedia entry for 'troll' or the old usenet trolling faq). The
problem is that that approach diverts attention from the behaviour of the group
attacked to the behaviour of the attacker, then gets lost in endless
attempts at classification of attacks.
Cheers
Graham
PS. I would prefer the list not to be closed
________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Kontakt: projekt oekonux.de