There was a user at "Stream University" in US who was from some tribe in a small African country. He had an antagonist out on the network from another tribe in that country. There was a war going on and the antagonists were from tribes on opposite sides of the war - and they weren't known for getting along before that. They were both using a network newsgroup (soc.culture.[that-countryname]) as a forum for their views. However, both of them were choosing the vilest, most offensive, crudest, threatening language possible for this "dialog." Every time the user in Stream University posted one of these, the school would get twenty or so complaints about his language and tone and,

often, inappropriateness. Stream University assumed that the other side received the same when their guy posted.

Since this happened every day, there were twenty or so complaints every day, which tied up someone's morning every day. The messages unquestionably violated the published rules for the accounts, and the user even admitted this. He was told that, if he didn't cease these violations, his account would be terminated. He continued, and his account was terminated four times, with a lecture from a different person in the school every time before his account was reactivated. His point of view in all of this is actually quite defensible:

1) He is only replying to things directed at him, and replying in exactly the same language and tone as that which was used against him.

2) His family honor, his personal honor, and his tribal honor have been dragged through the mud, and he feels he has a right to defend himself and his family and tribe.

3) Since they are both doing this, he feels that it is unfair to have his account terminated and not that of the other person also.

4) The school is effectively allowing someone else to insult him and lie about him publicly, worldwide (and therefore in his homeland), while denying him any chance to respond.

The school's view is close to:

1) He is causing the school extra work, and is violating the rules to do so.

2) He can defend himself. He just can't do it in an obscene objectionable way (even if that might be culturally accepted in his country as the appropriate response to an attack that is obscene and objectionable).

3) The school can't terminate the other person since it has no control over any other site. That person may not, in fact, be violating the rules of the site that he uses.

4) The school can't afford to keep dealing with the complaints. As long as the complaints are valid, it has a responsibility to fix that part of the problem to which the school has access. If he continues to use objectionable language, the school can't let him continue.

There are a number of interesting problems here, with many tied up in forcing this student/tribesman to comply with the school's cultural norms, in a manner that is offensive to him.

a. With the help of the case study above, will you propose three possible solutions to the case (two extremes and a compromise). Mark them a), b), and c). Give a best-case and worst-case outcome for each solution and, for each solution, indicate whether you could tolerate the worst-case outcome. Which of the three solutions would you choose?