Jonathan Zittrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
{ >Should the ORSC civil discourse rules be adopted? These require the
{ >appointment of three all-powerful moderators. Given the wide
disparity
{ >of views represented on this list, and given the rabid dislike that
{ >some individuals have for each other, it's difficult to see how this
{ >list could agree upon who the moderators should be. Equally, I don't
{ >know who could be trusted to act in this role without using it to
{ >promote their own positions.
{
{ Agreed. I do, though, also see a problem when half the messages on the
{ list are from one particular person, and anything goes in the
discourse.
{ Selective filtering by each listreader is meant to address that, but it
{ creates fuzz when we're each essentially reading different subsets of
the
{ list depending on whom we filter. Is there any way, architecturally,
to do
{ better for discussion of the issues than what we have now?
...
Darn good question! Here's all this potential for parallelism, and we
shove it all into a linear pipe/ list, hoping that selective filtering
will sort out one issue from another, or one component of an issue from
another, or one ramification of a component from another... It surely
does seem like some of the intelligence this requires of the listreader
could be translated into machine code somehow.
Hmmm, could the whole business of net 'governance' end up being
programmable? (Nah, that'd be no fun at all -- besides, who could be
trusted to write it?)
kerry
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
