Dear Keith and David,
I did not comment off list, however what would Ken's reaction have been had
Rosan Chou, myself, or anyone else engaged him in a similar way as an Avatar
and been found out. What would he have said and wished the List Owners to
have done in such a situation, I wonder?
As it is the season of good will to all men and women ;-), Seasons Greetings
to All.
Alec R.
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Russell
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 12/12/2004 23:02
Subject: ken/cindy resolution
Dear PhD Design list members,
For those unaware of it, there was a recent event on this discussion
list where one well known subscriber, Ken Friedman, adopted another net
persona 'Cindy Jackson' (see Archives). It seemed to us as listowners
that this event genuinely upset a number of people. In an effort to
gauge opinions, and decide what we might do about this situation and
situations like this that might occur in the future, we requested that
list members write to us offlist to express their views.
The emails received from list members represent a very small proportion
of the total list membership. They were about equally divided for and
against Ken's deception.
The Cindy/Ken event has disrupted the open communication of our List.
For many members the event was socially and culturally negative. The
element of "deception" introduced by a leading member has shaken
understandings of trust and purpose. It has also raised issues of
research practice and ethics.
Identity deception is an issue that all Internet communications have to
face. We have to trust each other. We have to assume that members'
intentions are underwritten by their social indentities.
While certain kinds of deception are deemed ethical, the circumstances
that allow for ethical deception are beyond the scope of our PhD-Design
list.
Some members may well feel that the slippage between rhetorical posing
and identity swapping is an easy one. We may make extravagant claims in
order to raise issues; we may run stalking horse arguments in order to
provoke engagement; we may play the Devil's Advocate; we may support
the weaker side of an argument in order to develop deeper insights. And
so on - there are many kinds of standard discourse ploys that we accept
on condition that the origin of such ploys are actual people that we
can then call to account.
In the case of the Cindy/Ken deception we can accept Ken's detailed
account of how and why he engaged in the deception (see Archives). Ken
has responded publicly in a fullsome and open manner. What the Group
cannot accept is the intention to deceive. For the Group to sustain
itself as an on-line community we must abide by the highest social
standards of group communication.
The Cindy/Ken event has become an obstacle (scandal). This obstacle has
reminded us all of our common committment and common need for verity.
The fact that we can feel deep emotions about this event makes us aware
of how much we value the Group and how real the Group has become as a
community of designers, scholars and concerned individuals.
We move foward based on trust. While we should all question all
arguments, including our own, we should be able to respect the members
of the Group as people with intentions and identities much like our
own. We should expect others to present themselves as we present
ourselves.
Communities have ways of self-healing. Silence has allowed us all a
space to consider and reflect on our communications with the Group. Ken
has "banished" himself for a time. This time is now coming on the
length of a Season. When the Season of Silence is over we should
welcome Ken (as Ken) back into the conversation.
List Owners
David Durling - Keith Russell
'Thus spake the listowners
and Ken left his cave, glowing and strong, like a morning sun coming
out of gloomy mountains'.
|