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

Sat Oct 17 11:38:05 EDT 2015

Hi,

there are many forms of bad condcut that have not been listed and merit it:

abusing process to delay or deform substance
veiled threats
undisclosed conflicts of interest, including contingent fees etc.
astroturfing
making up "think tanks" and expert opinion, or inflating their value
artificially
presenting as rights and citizen concern, dressed with citizen-activist
language, what is governmental/political or commercial interest

and so many, many others. There are books listing them.

While the idea of "bad actor" is attractive it essentializes the conduct
into the person.

So probably a bettter route is to identify the conducts. "Bad conduct"
instead of "bad actors" will still be hard to define unambiguously. It will
still make many people react defensively to tany definition. But it may be
an attempt that is less likely to flounder like this one is about to.

Also, what is specific to the multistakeholder process among all these
definitions? Our ifndings should concentrate on that question.

Alejandro Pisanty

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> 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, and
> respectful 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> WebRep
> Overall rating
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Bp_multistakeholder
> mailing list Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
> Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org
>
>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151017/68d2eb0f/attachment.htm>