[Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term

[Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku]

Hi, all,

Avri gave an intelligible comprehensive insight. Very thoughtful indeed.

I'd then like to define bad actors as people who consistently make remarks
that are detrimental to active participation of some other people and/or to
reaching a consensus in multistakeholder discussions.

Best regards,

CPU.

------------------------------------------------------

*Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.*

Management Information System, ICT and Innovation

University of Nigeria http://www.unn.edu.ng

Alternate e-mail 1: udochukwu.njoku at ieee.org

Alternate e-mail 2: njoku.prince at gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prince.udochukwunjoku

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisprinceudochukwunjoku

Tel.: +234 8077227038, 8063450674, 8108218762

Project: https://sites.google.com/a/unn.edu.ng/eteachingproject/

Project’s Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/ETeachingProjectUniversityOfNigeria

Article 1: http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=1868
Article 2: http://rgjournals.com/index.php/ijkrm/article/view/467

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
>
> First apologies for the tardiness of this note.
>
> At our last note, we came to a question of what we mean by bad actors in
> the sense of a multistakeholder practices.  I indicated I would start
> the discussion with some initial personal thoughts.
>
> Let me start with one thing I do think it does _not_ mean.
>
> - it does not mean people who disagree with the prevalent view point
> - if does not mean people who argue passionately for some view point
> they support
>
> Some of the elements that might contribute to a definition
>
> - people who participate in a process with the effect of scuttling the
> process.
> - people who persist in arguing a position after it has been discussed
> in detail and found to not be part of the consensus, and use that
> position to block the continuing work of the rest of the group.
> - people who persist in bringing up out-of-scope issues that act as road
> blocks to a group making process.
> - people whose primary form of argument is personal attack, intimidation
> and bullying.
>
> It is notoriously difficult to ascertain motives and intents to people's
> behavior, hence, unless there is evidence of intentionality in a
> person's or group's writings or public statements, any judgement of 'bad
> actor' must be taken on practical evidence.  Also, it is often difficult
> for a single person to judge the behavior of others, and such judgements
> should be taken with care and with the consensus of the group if
> possible.  Care must also be taken to not use claims of 'bad actor' to
> inflict a tyranny of the majority on a minority that has not had
> adequate opportunity to make and explain its case.
>
> Also, great care must be taken to not confuse passion with bad
> behavior.  A single action of bad behavior should not be confused with
> being a bad actor, people sometimes lose their cool under the stress of
> discussion and negotiation.  Judgement should be based on behavior
> trends and long lasting patterns.
>
> Finally, accusations of 'bad actor' should not be used to prevent a
> minority from including dissenting statement in relation to any
> consensus position taken by a group.
>
> avri
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org
>



-- 

WebRep
Overall rating
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151016/de47bbb1/attachment.htm>