At 15:58 09-05-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: >Jeroen, > >I am having a hard time understaning why the Wall of Shame is considered >reasonable by you. I am asking the following questions to help me >understand. > >1) Do you believe that the hurting someone's job prospects is a futting >punishiment for writing something that you considere out of line.
As I have stated before, I consider it no more harmful than the existence of on-line archives; I have not heard anyone argue that we should disallow those. >2) Are you sure enough in your judgement that you will not be hurting >someone that deserves no punishment at all. Yes. >3) Is your desire to read, say, my posts, so high that having to killfile me >in order to not read me being rude is too big of a loss for you? I cannot killfile anyone -- something to do with a Brin-L Archive and List Statistics. I can only choose to not reply to someone's post. >4) How hard do you think it is to find a website with my name on it and >selected quotes out of context; That depends on whether such a site exists and how long it has been up (it can take quite a while before any search engine finds it and adds the URL to its database). >How likely would a firm doing do diligence >be to type Dan Minette and see what popped up? That would depend on how interested the firm is in Dan Minette's personal live. A company that only looks at how your business is doing is not likely to do such a search. >5) How hard would it be to go through all my posts; how likely would it be >that a potential customer would do this? It would definitely take a while, going to all the stuff you have written (I mean, there is a reason you are currently #6 in the Brin-L Ranking). As for the customer: see my reply to the second question in question #4. >6) How sure are you that you can be perfectly objective in this? Sure enough. Unless you find it debatable whether or not statements like "you are a f*cking Nazi" and "you live in a paranoid fantasy world" are anything other than incidents of misbehaviour of the poster. >7) Why is something that is strongly opposed by many on the list, supported >by only you, a good thing? I have pointed out before what the positive effect could be. I also note that most of the people who oppose it are the ones who would actually end up on the Wall of Shame. >Why do you think you have the right to unilaterally decide somthing like >this? I believe that something that would make people think twice before launching personal attacks would be beneficial for this list, as it would free the list from such attacks and thus only better the atmosphere on the list. I believe everyone has the right to take actions that are beneficial for the list. >How sure are you that everyone who opposes the idea must be wrong? Fairly sure. I know why some people are opposed to it, but I think they are overestimating the possible impact on their real-world lives. I seriously doubt an employer would decide not to hire someone based solely on what he might find on a Wall of Shame. Quite frankly, if an employer would actually do so, I would not even *want* to work for him because he would probably also fire me if one single coworker would say something bad about me (regardless of whether or not said coworker is telling the truth). As stated above, some of the fiercest opponents are the people whose behaviour would get them on the Wall of Shame in the first place. I believe they are opposed to it for no other reason than that they want to continue their misbehaviour but do not want to be held accountable for it. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
