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

[Marilyn Cade]

I am watching this discussion and want to introduce a concept that may not be welcomed.A bad actor is someone who does not want to enable or engage in fact based and reasoned, andrespectful disagreement.  Consensus may not be achievable on a topic, which might not be ripe or mature. but discussion needs to be respectful and try to present facts and not engage in personal assaults or disparagement
I cannot spend a lot of time on this, but I do refer all of you to our early days when Nitan Desai was our Special Advisor to the SecGen and ask us to return to civility. 
BUT, again, it is possible NOT to reach consensus... that does not mean that one is a bad actor.
Some issues take much much and then much longer to understand,and and some have no global view, but regional or national views.... but all of these discourses need to be civil and fact based...
A bad actor to me is someone who engages in attacking and disparaging comments, attacks individuals or organizations or states with hostile and disparaging remarks... and seeks to disrupt the civil discourse.  
Civil disagreement should fall into a different category..
M

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:49:06 +0100
From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng
To: avri at acm.org
Subject: Re: [Bp_multistakeholder] Bad Actors - what is meant by this term
CC: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org

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



-- 

WebRepOverall rating 


_______________________________________________
Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151017/d5b62d2e/attachment.htm>