On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:54:37AM -0500, Eileen Tan wrote: > Wow. One warning and just about everyone reacts as though I've > flayed, dismembered, disembowelled, quartered and totally annihilated > a listmember. It's a sign that things are being taken way too > seriously around here.
Perhaps you should take it as a sign that you made a mistake? If "everyone" reacts in a certain way contrary to my expectations, it is a sign that I need to spend time reflecting on my attitudes and reevaluating my assumptions. > And no, Jeroen didn't "run to mummy", as some of you have so nicely > put it. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you had no communication with Jeroen on this subject before you posted the threat? You were simply reading the list as you normally do, you came across JDG's post, and thought, "Wow. That's too much. I better warn him", all by chance? > The tone of the last few posts in that thread had been going steadily > bad. Shouting brings it a giant step down, at which point I decided > it was time to head it off before it got worse. I think you will find that a large number of us share Marvin's opinion (did you read his post?). That is, that the list-owners job should be mechanical, and should not involve judging the tone or intent of posts that are clearly not spam. Decisions of "head[ing] it off" should be made by consensus by the list members, not by the list-owners. The list-owners, like politicians in a good democracy, simply execute the will of the people. > But police action? Hardly. Call it a penalty flag for rough play > instead. Clearly, a lot of people perceived it as an authoritarian threat. If you are worried about the tone of the list, I think the worst thing that could happen is for people to perceive the list-owners as having any direct power over the way people express themselves on the list. I know that I will not tolerate it. If this attitude of 2 of the 3 list-owners does not change, I will endeavor to start a new Brin-L list, where the list-owners are charged with maintaining the list, but not making judgements. And yes, that is a threat, although you would be more than welcome to join such a list if it becomes necessary. I hope it does not. > Not posting = inactive, however, not being active doesn't mean not reading > posts and following threads, which, over the last year, appear to be: > > 1. Oh look, here's something interesting I came across. > 2. Coherent arguments are posted, and after going through the layers, > finally decays and assumes the form of "America-vs-rest-of-the-world". > 3. Everyone tries to get the last word in. > 4. Someone unsubs or threatens to (which is one of those things I don't > fully grok. It's not like the universe is going to collapse if they did > or anything. Just don't slam the door on the way out, thank you). > 5. Finally sulk and gripe about how such things wouldn't have happened in > the good ol' days. Then why didn't you try to start a thread that was more interesting to you? Or perhaps post a rant saying that you didn't like the way things were going? Do you really thinking posting a threat at JDG was the best way to change to the tone of the list? > Wash, rinse, repeat. Can anyone honestly say that they can view > Jeroen's posts objectively after a few rounds of this, and vice-versa? Huh? I don't follow. I think a large number of people respond objectively to Jeroen on the list. > Incidentally, don't diss Jeroen for trying to bring aggressive members > back in line. Bring aggressive members back in line????????? Since when is that Jeroen's or your job??????? > Get to know him better and you'll see a earnest dedication to the > list - statistics, archives, ex-party and maintaining a fairly active > webpage. And I don't think that's because he's got a lot of free time > to throw around on things like this. This is nice, but irrelevant to the question of whether Jeroen is excercising too much control over how people express themselves on Brin-L. > Who would do the duty of enforcing guidelines during a heated > discussion if everyone is too emotionally involved or apathetic to do > so? The members of the list should make the decisions. When and if a consensus emerges, then the list-owners should execute that decision. Not before. > 1) A no holds barred battleground. A no opinions-banned discussion forum, where people are tolerant of the way others choose to express themselves. With benign-rulers who have absolute power but choose never to use that power without the consensus of the members of the group. > Now everyone, listowners included, go recite a hundred IAAMOACs as > penance and then get on with the good stuff. I'd say that it is primarily 2 of the 3 listowners who need to do this, as well as some hard thinking about what their best role is for serving this community. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
