On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Nick Arnett wrote: > I'd like to suggest that we turn this topic into a discussion of what we've > learned, so that we can move on. So who agrees that we have learned not to > warn people in public? What else? >
Yes and no. Again, a warning is by definition a conditional threat. If someone's behavior isn't bad enough to provoke or justify a public debate, I don't think even a private warning of the "Shape up or be banned" form is appropriate, since decisions about banning are supposed to reflect the will of the group. It seems to me that the structure and principles of Brin-L are such that before anyone gets banned, everybody should know that the possibility is there so that they can express their opinions on the subject, like now. So, I think a warning that carries a threat of banishment must be public at some point before any banishing actually happens. Now, if we drop below the level of warnings and threats, and stick to the level of reminders and remonstrances, then those should certainly be in private *unless* one is specifically seeking the opinion of the list overall. If I think Englebert is being a jerk (independent of the content of any given argument), and if I feel I should tell him he's being a jerk for the sake of improving the atmosphere of the list, then I should tell him in private because a) public remonstrances are embarassing, and doubly embarassing for the remonstrator should they backfire, and b) because this kind of communication is basically personal, and keeping it private expresses respect for the "victim" and for the group generally. Also, expressions of opinion like this aren't warnings because they don't carry any conditional "if A then B" threat attached, so by making such an expression I'm not presuming to speak for everybody. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
