----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:49 AM Subject: RE: Official Statement
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. van Baardwijk > > Subject: Re: Official Statement > > > > I dont think so......no not at all. I think we are all adults here and > know > > right from wrong. If you cant seem to get a handle on it, the maybe > Sonja > > can help you since she seems to have a pretty good head on her > shoulders. > > > > I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and > to be > > honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You argue > like > > a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is > really a > > pretty simple thing for most people. > > OK, here's where I disagree with you, Rob. If for no other reason than > to be fair, the rules really need to establish in advance whether > typical moderation will be indefinite or temporary -- or if it will last > until a change in behavior is forthcoming etc. A change in behavior should be the pivotal reason for a change of status in either direction. I do not think that we are into punishment here, nor do we want to establish anyone as civil authorities. We only want to keep the peace and protect the list itself. I dont think we want to build jails (or any analogue of jails ). I think that all we ever want to do is to show a person that a. they are disrupting the list b. it wont be tolerated I f a person is still uncooperative, they can be banned. *If we look back into recent history, this process may have saved a lot of bandwidth in regards to Mark, in that he would have clearly been shown what would and what would not be tolerated. *Moderation is a filter through which true incorrigables can be seperated from dissenters. > I don't think it needs > to be terribly specific, but it does need to let people know they're not > being shunned indefinitely. I disagree with Jeroen's methods: demands, > etc., but he did have one very good point: AFAIK, he was never told how > long the moderation would last and IMHO, under normal circumstances > that's wrong. Basicly, I dont believe we need rules so much as the establishment of a guiding philosophy. Rules bind you, they are a sword that cuts both ways. And I for one, would like the listowners to have the leeway to practice and use good judgement. Rules are hard and fast, but a philosophy can be more flexible. Generally we call our current philosophy "The Guidelines". We discourage the use of expletives on the list, yet there are times when their use is entirely appropriate, shift/masked or not. > > > > > > > > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to > hell... > > > > I think a lot of us, myself included, have been waiting for it to get > *back* from hell. It's been a nasty year to be an active Brinneller. > :-( > > > I agree, and while i think a Jeroen-less list is a diminished list, do > not > > think life would go on for the rest of us without you. > > We've lost many people over the past few years, some to their own > stubborn-ness and others to their own desire to enjoy being a part of a > grand discussion not peppered with flamewars and bickering. Brin-L goes > on without their voices, but I think each one is missed. :-( > > It would be a terrible shame to lose anyone else for any reason, but it > would be especially disappointing and sad for us to lose Jeroen. He has > poured a *lot* of time, love and energy into this place. I'm glad he's > changed his mind. > > > By the same token I > > believe that losing JDG would be tragic also, so please refrain from > > "requests" that others be banned or moderated. Coming from you after > the > > last few weeks, it would leave quite a bad taste. > > Or, rather than calling for it onlist, which seems to promote intense > arguments and flamewars, can we suggest that such subjects be taken up > with the listowners privately and *calmly*? I agree in general. I wanted to go on record as saying that I dont like members bitching about one another and that there are good reasons why they shouldnt. Let me go on record again: I think complaining about other listmembers should be recognised as grounds for moderation. (of course I'm talking about constant bitching, not justifiable complaints.) > Saying 'don't discuss it' > seems too much like 'we'll welcome you back as long as you keep your > mouth shut'. By the same token, the last thing I think any of us wants > is to rehash these arguments on the list *again!* > > If you disagree Rob, please jump in! :) I know we want to put this > behind us.... > > > Sometimes its better to keep some opinions under your hat ( you can > bet that > > I dont say everything I think at all times). <G> > > > > Note to self: adopt this policy ;-) > > > If you start feeling like saying things that might cause trouble, you > can > > always email me first and see what effect it has on me, before > springing it > > on the list at large. > > *Grin* I hereby nominate Rob as our official 'trouble' diplomat. :-) > *Grin* > I think I'm in trouble now! <G> xponent Flexable Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
