Dear All,

The posts of the last few days and a question directed to me leave me
feeling I ought to make a brief response.

On October 21, I apologized to the list and I wrote an explanation.

My experience gives me much to reflect on. I was not mindful. I
should have thought more deeply and reflectively before taking this
action. This was not research, it was not a carefully considered
ploy, and it was not an experiment. I created what would have been
called a pen name (nom de plume) in another context. I created a
false identity, a voice, or a persona. I would not dignify my
creation with a label as grand as "net persona" or "avatar." I
thought of this creation as I would have thought of a pen name in the
era of paper communication.

This is where the problem comes in.

We are a community because we participate in dialogue together. We
use a technology that brings us closer together than paper might do.
We participate in a time frame that would never have been possible on
paper. We maintain nearly instant communication despite our global
geographic range. Many of us know each other, and we have many sets
of relations.

All of this gives rise to a sense of community, and this sense of
community makes an invented voice inappropriate in the context of our
list community.

I did not reflect deeply enough on these issues. I used a pen name to
solve what I considered a problem. In doing so, I created another
problem, perhaps a series of problems, with nested and recursive
difficulties hidden layered within them.

At one point, someone posing as "Alan Sokal" asked whether Cindy and
I might be the same person. Both "Cindy" and I received off-list
queries on this question. I bought a little time with a misleading
answer and then I posted an explanation and apology.

It may seem inappropriate, but I distinguish between the deception of
using a pen name and the act of lying. Under my pen name, I deceived
people as to the identity of my authorship. I reinforced that
deception using my own name. At the same time, nothing in Cindy's
contributions to the list took place outside the bounds of what I saw
as acceptable behavior. As Keith and David wrote, the unacceptable
aspect of this act was deceiving people in a community based on trust.

This was inappropriate.

Explanation is not a justification. I should not have used a created
voice or pen name on this list.

Again, I apologize to you all for this act.

At some point I may have more to say ... I request your understanding
for the fact that I want to reflect deeply before I say more.

Rosan asked the list owners for leadership. It seems to me they have
provided it.

They stated in their post that created voices and noms de plume
(personas or avatars) are not acceptable on this list.

This is a new ruling. This issue never came up before I announced my
deception and revealed myself. List owners Keith Russell and David
Durling have ruled on this issue now.

I agree with their post. I could probably add a few more reasons as
to why I feel it was a mistake to create a fictitious voice on the
list. I participate here as Ken Friedman. Given this fact,
subscribing as a second person through an invented voice was a
mistake.

Rosan's call for leadership raises two issues. There is a distinction
between opinions and decisions on list protocol. Rosan's opinion is
equal to that of any other list member. Where it comes to protocol
rulings, JISC sets the standards for all JISCMAIL lists. JISC
delegates full authority for list protocol to JISCMAIL list owners.
They "own" the list on behalf of JISC.

All of us have the right to an opinion. The list owners have never
debated that. The incident Rosan mentions involved a protocol ruling,
not a personal, scholarly, or professional opinion. The protocol
ruling governed the process of an on-line conference. In that
context, the owners asked a list member to refrain from list conduct
that might have been perfectly fine in another context. The list is
an open forum -- the fact that some activities are not permitted on
certain occasions does not change the quality of the list as an open
forum.

In this case, the list owners have given the leadership that Rosan
requests. They have now ruled that created voices are not acceptable
on PhD-Design.

For my part, I agree entirely with Keith and David's letter. While
the social, cultural, rhetorical, and design issues embedded in the
process of creating and activating a voice are fascinating, my
primary response is as a person who created such a voice in an
inappropriate context.

This was a mistake. I regret it.

Before ending, I will answer the question Alec asked about what I
would have done if I discovered that someone had addressed me through
an avatar or fictitious person. It happened here on the list. I can
answer by pointing to the list archives.

On October 18, a list member writing as the physicist "Alan Sokal"
posted the query on my identity. The post came from a false email
address attributed to the UN arms inspector "Hans Blix." Since I knew
the real Alan Sokal did not write this, I knew I was answering a
fictitious person. I have read several of his books and articles and
some years ago, I exchanged letters with him. The style was not his.
Based on orthographic style and language patterns, I have my own
ideas concerning the real identity of the person who posted the
query. Perhaps one day our "Alan Sokal" will step forward to discuss
his or her part in these events.

As it is, I did not worry about the real authorship of the query. The
question was reasonable. I treated it respectfully and I gave a full
and honest answer to the list.

How would I have treated this in other circumstances? I appreciated
what Susan wrote about me. I hope that I would act appropriately in
the circumstances that might emerge.

For now, I hope you will accept my apologies and accept my decision
to say no more at this time.

Sincerely,

Ken Friedman