On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Ray Ludenia wrote: > J. van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > - what kinds of behaviour will not be accepted > > - what steps can/will be taken in case something unacceptable happens > > - if sanctions are taken against a member, how long they will last. > > Reasonable points, but should be kept fairly general ie not a highly > detailed and specific list of transgressions and detailed penalties.
IMO: Jo Anne's etiquette guidelines adequately spell out what constitutes desirable and undesirable behavior if ordinary social norms prove insufficient. Steps/sanctions should be left to the discretion of the list owners because there are too many possible cases and contexts for a set of unambiguous rules to be written. However, I do think that when a temporary moderation or ban is put in place, it's only fair that the duration be spelled out at the beginning. EG, "So-and-so will be on moderation for one week, effective immediately," or "So-and-so will is on moderation and will be taken off moderation after he/she goes x consecutive days without writing a post that the listowners feel should be rejected." Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses. (Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of etiquette may be quite another matter, however.) Statements of apology might be taken as "good behavior" conducive to "early parole," however. > > I also think it should be formally established that sanctions may only be > > taken after the list has discussed the matter and has given its approval. > > This should prevent current and future listowners from becoming judge, jury > > and executioner. Keywords here are "accountability" and "transparency". > > Please no! I don't want endless arguments and bickering about any specific > cases. As long as there is a clear statement by the list manager(s) giving > reasons and remedies, then that should be it. If they clearly over-step the > mark, then I am sure there would be no stopping ferocious reaction to their > decisions. As long as they are reasonable, even if we disagree to some > extent, I would rather not have the list cluttered with endless discussions > about this. I would think we have had enough of that already. I agree with Ray. IIRC, the list has never successfully produced a means of determining consensus on an issue, must less achieved an identifiable consensus. Experience teaches us that the only consensus we can reasonably expect is the tacit approval indicated by a) a general lack of complaint, and b) the general willingness of listmembers to stay subscribed. (Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, someone said.) Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
