----- Original Message ----- From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > >> Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, > >> it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent > >> before, from other people. > > > > Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? > > > Jeroen. > > And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's > done offlist? Because the offline email was posted on list. > > Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to > > respond to email by personally insulting said person? > > > Jeroen. > > So, it's in the list rules that offending someone else > is forbidden? No, it is possible to offend someone simply by giving a reasonable argument that rebutts something they say. The list ettiquette rules 1) Say no personal attacks on list 2) Say take exchanges that are getting personal and heated offlist. When JDG and Jeroen's discussions were turning into flame wars the requests were 1) Stop it 2) Take it offline JDG tried to do both recently, but found his efforts thwarted. It seems reasonable for JDG to request that something be done about this. It was clear, to me, that some form of moderation would be used to minimize flame wars. Further, even in forums where flame wars predominate, people do not post off list messages or keep on flaming someone who doesn't reply. > > Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster > > of another list member because they either didn't > > respond to posts or responded offlist? > > > Jeroen. > > So, the rule is: if X requests that Y should be banned, > then X must be banned? No. The banning has nothing to do with that. The banning has to do with actions taken after moderation was started. Personally, if Jerone actually did try to hack Nick's computers, then a ban until he demonstrates that he has changed enough so that the probability of another hack is miniscular is most reasonable. If he actually did something less, like cut and paste "respond to", then a simple promise to not send repeated messages to be moderated over and over again, costing Nick and Julia a lot of time, sounds OK to me. > Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other > listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. > If there's no law against drinking alchool, then > there's no law against getting drunk Can you come up with a cite where another member has suggested that someone kill themselves? Has anyone else put up a wall of shame? Has anyone else deliberately posted private email? Even if you were right, the magnitude and intensity argument has been well refuted, IMHO, by other posters. But, let me give one more example. Simply because someone has not been arrested for going 30.00001 kph in a 30 kph school zone doesn't mean that someone should not be arrested and taken to jail for going 150 kph in a 30 kph school zone. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
