Policy about underage polyphasic aspirants: Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
le...@gol.com
being 15 years old, who also mentioned interference by parents might
be a problem for her in pursuing polyphasic sleep, even though her
friends at school thought it was OK. I allowed it, but I have
reservations all the same.
We don't know the long-term effects of polyphasic, particularly
uberman. If it proves to be safe for adults, that still won't mean
it's safe for younger people. I signed on as moderator cheerfully,
but this time I had to ask myself: if I had a son or daughter, and he
or she posted some such message to this forum, how would I feel about
it? Would I intervene? Would I contact the moderators? More
troubling still: if my child had an accident to which the sleep-dep
attendant on polyphasic adjustment could arguably have contributed,
would I hold anyone in the Polyphasic group partly responsible, and
particularly the moderators?
The policy I'd like to propose is this: if any new or present member
posts with a reference to being underage (or an allusion to being
underage, such as possible interference from parents), the moderators
will reply by personal e-mail, telling the would-be member that they
couldn't attempt to post again under that same e-mail address, nor
could they identify themselves by the same name in any subsequent
posts under a new, different e-mail address. The same policy would
apply to any new or present member who asks the age of any member on
the list, when it's clear from context that the person being asked
*might* be underage.
Context should be clearcut. I've openly admitted to being 51 here
recently, but I think I've left more than enough clues that I'm no
spring chicken. PD is a mother, and pursuing an advanced degree.
Other members have mentioned being in college degree programs. Yet
others mention years of work experience. That sort of thing is enough
context to qualify us as adults for all practical purposes here.
I think such a policy would permit all of us (but especially the
moderators, who really DON'T want to be seen in any "in loco parentis"
role here) to communicate more freely.
FWIW, here are my feelings on this policy: I don't like it. Not one
bit. In some sense, I think it's unreasonable -- after all, when I
was a kid, I did a lot of stupid things, not least of which was seeing
if I could stay up for three whole days. Kids will do what they can
get away with. Some kids are more mature than others (physically and
mentally), and *should* be treated as adults. And some adults are no
better than children. But we have to think about the dangers anyway.
I hate drawing arbitrary lines like "age of consent", but those lines
exist because any other line is going to be so squiggly and fuzzy and
subject to debate as to be useless. And even our most finely drawn
lines might nevertheless cross legal boundaries about which we can do
nothing. Having a rule such as I suggest should keep us well clear of
legal liability, while still permitting the underage to learn and
contribute here, as long as they withhold that fact about themselves
from the list. It's the best compromise I can think of, and like many
compromises, it's not completely satisfactory.
I also don't like this policy because it means more work for me as
moderator. But I'm willing to do that extra work, if other moderators
will also hold up their end of it. However, I'm not sure I'm willing
to continue as moderator unless we have a reasonable policy about
postings from those known (or plausibly suspected) to be under the age
of consent. If we can't arrive at a policy I can agree with, I'll
probably withdraw as moderator, but will continue to contribute, while
not replying to anyone who I think is underage.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
Ian Petersen
attitude would be more legally secure than any other kind of policy.
Here's my reasoning: if you enforce a policy, you're recognizing a
problem and taking some responsibility for it. If, even with the
policy in place, something goes wrong, there may be some liability for
the moderators for not preventing this hypothetical problem. On the
other hand, if the moderators' responsibility was merely to prevent
spam, then all comers are equal and the moderators are not trying to
be baby sitters.
I arrived at this position by analogy to the concept of a common
carrier. Now, that concept may be irrelevant to begin with, and even
if it's not, we may already have waived common carrier status (or
whatever the analogous status would be) by filtering spam.
My two cents...
Ian
--
Tired of pop-ups, security holes, and spyware?
Try Firefox: http://www.getfirefox.com
Michael Turner
On 4/8/2007, "Ian Petersen" <ispe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not a lawyer, and all that, but I would think that a hands-off
>attitude would be more legally secure than any other kind of policy.
If escaping liability were the only consideration, I'd agree. There are
at least two others, however:
(1) Without moderation, we might eventually drown in spam, as with the
Yahoo group;
(2) Moderation usually improves the tone and content of the discussion.
I haven't had to deflect many counterproductive "contributions" so
far, but I'm glad I did, when I did: somebody called somebody
"stupid" twice in two consecutive, closely-spaced postings. And on
what turned out to be an interesting topic.
I want this group to be rewarding. But rewards often carry risks. In
this case, I believe there are real legal risks, especially (but not
exclusively) for the moderators, stemming from admittedly unknown
long-term health risks and at least obvious short-term risk: people in
sleep dep have more accidents.
>Here's my reasoning: if you enforce a policy, you're recognizing a
>problem and taking some responsibility for it. If, even with the
>policy in place, something goes wrong, there may be some liability for
>the moderators for not preventing this hypothetical problem. On the
>other hand, if the moderators' responsibility was merely to prevent
>spam, then all comers are equal and the moderators are not trying to
>be baby sitters.
Perhaps so, but I'd prefer to prevent more than just spam. Many
unmoderated Google groups are filled with all kinds of provocative
abuse. For example, I contribute to sci.space.policy on occasion, a
topic worth of serious consideration and a group where sane and mature
voices can sometimes be heard. However, one of the recent threads there
is (somehow) about whether Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush is the worst
U.S. president ever. Not just irrelevant, also just plain silly.
(Warren Harding was the worst, hands down ;-) Given that so many people
think polyphasic sleep is a whacko topic, and that it's struggling out
of the ghetto toward something like respectability, I think we owe
ourselves a better image than that.
>I arrived at this position by analogy to the concept of a common
>carrier. Now, that concept may be irrelevant to begin with, and even
>if it's not, we may already have waived common carrier status (or
>whatever the analogous status would be) by filtering spam.
I don't know. I wish I did. One of the moderators is seeking some
advice from a family member who knows something about liability when it
comes to minors.
However, entirely aside from legal protection of moderators (and others
here), there's another undeniable fact: we don't want to be part of
hurting anybody IF we can possibly help it. And permanent harm done in
youth tends to be more extensive, if only because the harm is going to
last longer. If I, at age 51, trash my health with uberman experiments,
actuarially speaking, I've done less damage than a younger person who
can expect live two or three times more years than I might have left.
>My two cents...
Appreciated. I should have been clearer: I'm trying to come up with
policy that solves four problems:
(1) protecting the group from spam
(2) protecting the discussion here from flaming
(3) ethical protection of minors
(4) legal protection of moderators from legal liability
not necessarily in that order. A hands-off policy protects the
moderators legally, and protects the group from spam, but that's all.
Can we do better? I hope so.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
RawSewage
censorship. You don't have to play the role of parent. The
community will inform newbies of potential risks, the unknown nature
of polyphasic sleep, etc.
Michael Turner
On 4/8/2007, "RawSewage" <bil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think only spam should be moderated. Anything else is just
>censorship.
Oh? Go over to an "uncensored" group in Google to get a taste of how
relevant, coherent and balanced the discussion is. Censorship is when
the government (or a media monopoly) infringes on freedom of expression
within some reasonable understanding of the value of that freedom.
Nothing stops you, or anyone, from starting your own polyphasic-oriented
group and leaving it unmoderated except for spam. I sure can't stop
you. Go ahead.
>You don't have to play the role of parent.
It is precisely so that none of us has to play that role -- or ever deal
with any irate, litigious person actually *in* that role -- that I
proposed the policies mentioned.
>The
>community will inform newbies of potential risks, the unknown nature
>of polyphasic sleep, etc.
I wish that were enough legal protection. The fact is, minors hurt
themselves all the time despite warnings, and their parents sue all the
time despite those warnings, and all too often they win. Even when they
lose, it costs a lot for the defendent to defend. No thanks.
In about 10 seconds, anybody can find out who I am and where I live. In
the case of one other moderator, identification and location would take
a mere day's worth of detective work from what I can see -- negligible
compared to legal fees for prosecution. YOU are probably very safe,
however. Freedom of speech is more enabled by the willingness of many
people to say what they want and take the risks involved than by
anonymous postings under absurdist e-mail monikers like yours. Freedom
is like that: easy come, easy go. You have it easy.
-michael turner, your increasingly fascist moderator
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
le...@gol.com
apologize to her for any offense given. She said that her friends at
school agreed that *naps* should be built into the school schedule
somehow (great idea), not that they had told her polyphasic was OK.
I have recently written to the two involved in the exchange where they
revealed they were 15 years old, explaining a point I didn't bring up
in the original posting. Here it is: It took somebody here some hard
work to move us from Yahoo to Google Groups, after the Uberman Yahoo
list started drowning in spam. If moderators here get too concerned
about legal liability, soon there won't be any moderators, and we're
back to square one: spamsville. Not a great first impression for the
curious. (I edited out the Yahoo Uberman link from Wikipedia not so
long ago.) Not to mention that unmoderated groups typically suffer
chronic eruptions of flaming. I hope they can understand.
I can't overemphasize: I *HATE* this whole idea of limiting what
people
can say about themselves here just because they happen to be legally
underage, and hate almost as much the idea of discouraging inquiries
that might reveal that a list member is underage. People *will* slip
up, saying "high school" when just "school" would give them better
cover, "parents/mother/father" instead of "family objections", etc.,
etc. And then we'd have to kick them off, if we stuck to the policy.
But I just can't see any other way around it, and I think any teenager
with the discipline to go polyphasic would probably also have the
precocious maturity to sympathize with the position being a moderator
here can put you in.
And with that last comment, I might have strayed dangerously over the
line toward proselytizing for polyphasic to those not fully grown. So
let me add the disclaimer that should probably be tacked automatically
on every posting: "Polyphasic sleep is not recommended for anyone who
hasn't achieved both the legal age of consent and their likely adult
physical stature. The long term health effects have not been
scientifically studied, and are not known for grownups, much less for
those not yet fully grown. Polyphasic sleepers adopt the schedule at
their own risk."
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com
.com
Kirk
politician's, and I like examining all types of situations and variables to
better understand this phenomenon. It's a real bummer to have to say "no"
to some possibility that would contribute to the growing body of knowledge.
Michael makes a good point though, and I can see how anyone on this list,
especially the moderators, could be held accountable for moral or legal
responsibilities in regards to minors. I have done all sorts of experiments
on my body (and continue to do so), but I am not a minor asking advice from
a non-minor.
As for the matter of informing our group members, I think a message at the
bottom of each post is a bit obnoxious (I can't stand all the crap that
Yahoo tacks on to every post, and the damn HTML). If we can somehow inform
users upon signup, or make it so they have to agree to something in order to
sign up, I think that would be the best way to do it.
~Kirk
Michael Turner
On 4/9/2007, "Kirk" <ki...@kirkkahn.com> wrote:
>My attitude toward polyphasic sleep is more like a scientist's than a
>politician's, and I like examining all types of situations and variables to
>better understand this phenomenon.
I like to think I'm much the same. (And most scientists hate politics.)
But reality intrudes ....
> It's a real bummer to have to say "no"
>to some possibility that would contribute to the growing body of knowledge.
... said Dr. Mengele ;-)
William Safire wrote in his column today about changing uses of the word
"existential" (e.g., "terrorism is an existential threat", meaning
"terrorism is a very, very, very important danger, so I have to use a
big impressive word when I talk about it.") There was this bit
paraphrased from Kierkegaard, who said that
".... the need to make painful ethical decisions is the source of
mankind's dread and despair; that man was solitary, existing in
isolation. The fact being totally free -- therefore, uniquely
responsible -- scares us in the most profound way, requiring a 'leap of
faith' to find God."
Then Sartre comes along and says we gotta face all this crap without even
the benefit of a God. We "stand as if on a trap door" that might
spring open at any moment. Yeah, the comedy never ends with those
Existentialists.
Well, we have to make a painful ethical decision here, so that this group
doesn't fall through a trap door -- even though it could at any moment,
as things stand, and maybe even afterward. I dread the decision, but I
don't despair.
>As for the matter of informing our group members, I think a message at the
>bottom of each post is a bit obnoxious (I can't stand all the crap that
>Yahoo tacks on to every post, and the damn HTML). If we can somehow inform
>users upon signup, or make it so they have to agree to something in order to
>sign up, I think that would be the best way to do it.
I propose only tacking on a warning/disclaimer for past messages that
violate the proposed policy -- a disclaimer at both beginning and end,
maybe. But not for every message. Informing people on signup should be
enough. At most, maybe a link at the end of each message about where to
find group policies.
-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com