This post and several others are "Emily Posting" in my mailbox. I won't send the rest out right away to make sure I'm not posting from an emotional perspective.
>From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > These nasty things *are* clearly being posted and said, and they are >against > > the Etiquette guidelines. The people who post them should, quite >frankly, > > attack your argument and not you. I have said this onlist before, and I > > recently rose to your defense when I thought something had been said >that > > was particularly out of line. Yet, I handled it in a manner which I >felt > > was more appropriate to the nature of our list: I posted a >plea/complaint > > about the way list members were treating each other, and urged the list >to > > be more civilized. And, at least one list member who was previously > > attacking you seems to have ceased doing so. > >Maybe I've missed it but nobody ever complained about this one: > >Robert Seeberger wrote: > > I see 2 patterns superimposed on each other. > > 1 You like to argue with Americans > > 2 You have a problem admitting that you are a disagreeable cuss > >I'd say the latter is an inexcusable personal attack (weather it was meant >funny >or not). If Jeroen had said something like this he'd be crusified by a >number of >people on this list by now. I don't think it is funny and it doesn't >contribute >anything to the discussion. I'm not going to address that right now, except to note as others have done onlist that such comments can be easily misinterpreted by non-native English speakers. I think Robert did an admirable job of explaining himself. > >I really liked Jon's post where he actually posed an interesting question. >Is >the production of a site of shame'' actually an attempt at moderation? I haven't really seen a response from Jeroen on this, and I'm curious about his point of view. Perhaps he did and I missed it... I'll check. Also >interesting points are what factors would contribute toward moderation, is >it >desirable or is a site of shame a good idea at all, what could be put on >such a >site and what makes such a site better/worse. I think it is a valid >discussion >as is any on this list. (Although I personally would much rather like to go >back >to the 'ding' system) I think a 'ding' system would be more effective, and more appropriate, personally. It has become increasingly obvious to me over the past 6-12 months that some list members (myself included at times) are incapable of objectively and unemotionally dicussing certain topics. I think if more people spoke out to ding (while not singling out one offender,) we'd find fewer personal attacks. I don't always agree with Jeroen, but I have on occasion opened my mouth when he's being personally attacked -- despite my feelings about the topic(s) being discussed. List silence only results in a kind of tacit acceptance of such provocative behavior. For example: we've already had a lengthy discussion about why more list members didn't say something when one particular poster called him a "f****** Nazi". Responses ranged from "I didn't want to get involved" to "Look at how the list reacts against _me_ for asking for civility." That's ridiculous. We all know it's wrong, yet we do nothing? And Jeroen has a valid point here... which I spent time over the past few days confirming. He has, on multiple occasions, complained about personal attacks and been ignored or scoffed at by the offenders. List members whom I respect and consider quite neutral keep their mouths shut, when a simple "ding" from them might curb the problem behavior of others. >I can understand that (keeping in mind the co ownership of Jeroen) it can >make >people nervous where the suggestion of shaming and naming come into play. >But >there are three listowners. Fearing that anything Jeroen does will end in >excluding listmembers, from this end, looks a bit like good ol' American >paranoia* if you ask me. Not paranoia. This was not a situation where a difference of perspective might change interpretation. Jeroen was quite clear about what he was planning on doing. As I've stated before, his actions were designed to silence listmembers -- either by threatening them with banishment or by putting up a 'shame site' which would make them think twice about posting anything that could be easily be misinterpreted out of context. _That's_ what I objected to. I'll deal with Jeroen's response, (which I was rather impressed with, btw) in a future post. When Eileen Tan stepped in to defend Jeroen a couple of months ago, she said something along the lines of "Congratulations, John G., you're one step closer to banishment." (A very clear threat -- there's not much interpretation wiggle room there!) I am trying to make the point here that threats of banishment are NEVER an appropriate way for a list owner to make a point with other list members. Marvin and Julia have discussed why there is little trust of Jeroen on this list. Since I'm not attacking him personally, only discussing his behavior, I am going to respond despite the request not to do so. I don't think this is a general problem with list owner authority on my part -- just a concern that said authority is being exercised inappropriately. Threats of banishment from any list owners, whether they are perceived by said list owner as "not really a threat" or "mild warning" should not be made unless any other possible options of correcting violations of the Etiquette guidelines have been exhausted. A threat of Banishment is severe enough that it should be a _last resort_. (And a threat of banishment _is_ severe, even when the person uttering thinks otherwise.) Why are Listowners incapable of saying to an offending poster: "Calling someone a Nazi is completely wrong and inappropriate. I think you should apologize and not do it again." Jo Anne did it all the time without saying "One more time and I'll throw you out of here permanently." I see no reason why our three list owners can't be held to that same standard. >Finally I'd like to nominate Marvin's post on the subject of the way of >discussing and the subject of personal attacks as post of the week. Agreed. Marvin always seems to say what I would like to more eloquently than I'm capable of. :) >PS *) I say 'American' here because I get the impression that Americans in >general are against any type of interference by people percieved as in >power. There is a definite mistrust of authority that is inherent to American culture. History has shown us that power is easily corrupted. You would be surprised, I guess, at how much many Americans really trust and believe that their system of government, despite it's flaws, is far superior to most others. >Furthermore the concept of conspiracy theories are a largly American type >cliche, widely introduced to the world by Hollywood. So I'm using it here >as a >cliche not as judgement. We're not all "Baywatch" and the "X-files" :-) Jon _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
