On 04/24/2011 02:36 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I also think it is a better idea to put someone who is acting in an abusive
manner on manual moderation before actually banning them.
Good idea. Does the beginners@perl.org mailing list software have this
feature?
Well, online bullying is a problem, but I don't think that saying "Your Perl
code sucks" or "Please don't post misleaing answers to people's Perl
questions" would qualify as online bullying.
I once sat on a jury for a criminal case involving a bum who ran from
the police, fought back with a metal rod while being "arrested"
(attacked) by a K-9 unit, and ended up breaking a cop's finger. The bum
was charged with (1) resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace
officer, (2) assault, (3) battery, (4) battery with grievous bodily
injury, (5) battery on a peace officer, and (6) battery on a peace
office with grievous bodily injury. He was looking at 10+ years in
prison and convicted felon status for the rest of his life. Most of the
charges hinged upon the concept of "intent" -- could the prosecution
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to hit the
cop, or was the cop's hand merely in the wrong place at the wrong time?
A second key concept was this: the judge gave us explicit
instructions that we were to decide questions of fact and guilt per the
definitions in the law, nothing else. We were *not* to weight the crime
against the punishment. It was a real eye-opener for me.
The point is this: some crimes hinge upon what's going on inside
someone's head. What may not qualify as "bullying" to you may qualify
for someone else. And, if that someone else files a complaint with the
relevant law enforcement agencies, life could get very unpleasant for
people connect to this list. Regardless of what happens or does not
happen under the criminal justice system, the victim also has rights
under civil law. Do you remember O. J. Simpson?
The way I see it, "Cyberbulling" is much more persistent than just making one
comment on a post to a public mailing list.
Perhaps. Note that people on this list have already stated that certain
people have a history of questionable conduct on this list. Yet, those
same certain people are still here. I know of a workplace harassment
civil case with parallels. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the
employer knew that a certain supervisor had a history harassing
employees, did nothing about it, and therefore shared the blame. The
strategy is to put stink on everybody until the defendant with the deep
pockets pays to settle without trial (e.g. the employer). Failing that,
counsel for the plaintiff will ask the jury for exemplary punitive
damages. That's why I said that the Perl Foundation has a stake in this.
I don't suggest turning beginners@perl.org into something voted and deomcratic
like Slashdot.org, Stackoverflow.com or perlmonks.org . I think that voting
things up (and especially down) would be demotivating, and would yield to a
lot of karma wars and whoring. We should be an open forum where people gain
esteem by helping other people in a nice way, and the manners in which they
are manifested are by saying "thanks" etc.
Your intentions are well and good, but what matters in court is the law
and case precedence.
> Sorry for writing such a long message.
Thank you for writing such a long message. :-)
As aside, people reading this may think twice before hitting the "Send"
button.
David
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
