At 08:40 1-2-02 -0500, Erik Reuter 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?
Oh the irony. Eileen and I get attacked because warning John was "totally unjustified", "an outrage", "abuse of power" and other such nonsense, but we get attacked in the same way (if not worse) we are being accused of using. > > 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? Not "running to mummy" does not equal "no communication at all". One would think that after repeatedly mentioning the nature of the communication between me and the other listowners, people would actually start remembering it... > > But police action? Hardly. Call it a penalty flag for rough play > > instead. > >Clearly, a lot of people perceived it as an authoritarian threat. But, since most (if not all) of those people are US citizens, I get this idea that their perception is based on the typical American fear/distrust of authority/government, combined with a tendency to overreact to things they disagree with. > > 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??????? It has been pointed out by several people that all members (not just the listowners) have a right to call on people who misbehave. Since the listowners are also members, they have as much right as anyone else to to that. Your statement however implies that the listowners (unlike everyone else) are NOT allowed to do that. > > 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. I am not "exercising control". If I were, that would mean I was unsubscribing people -- which I have not done. The other method would be moderating all posts before allowing them to reach the list, but this is impossible as Brin-L is unmoderated. >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. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. > > 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. Which is exactly the way our powers are used. > > 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. Let me guess -- some of you, deep in your hearts, would really want me and Eileen to resign, right? Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
