Well, folks, two-plus years after founding Minneapolis-Issues, this was the
toughest day for me as List manager. Please allow me a personal post
relating to list management.
Several of you have written me about the expulsion of David Shove, more than
a few to criticize. I regret that so many people I respect have harsh words
for me, and I take them seriously. In my calmer moments, I have to remember
that these critics are people of integrity. I hope they will remember the
same about me.
Still, while I regret expelling David, I would do so again.
Minneapolis-Issues has succeeded because it is - at least compared to most
Minneapolis political spheres - a diverse place. Greens, Republicans,
DFLers, north siders, south siders, insiders, outsiders. I'd like to think
that two years of fair management of the list has something to do with that.
Some people insisted I expelled David out of some partisan or ideological
motivation. Nothing could be further from the truth. When someone refers to
"corrupt DFL hacks," I focus on the words "corrupt" and "hack," not DFL. I
honestly don't care what party the labeled are from, and I honestly don't
care what issue is being discussed (as long as it's a Minneapolis Issue.)
I have never witnessed a debate that is improved by name-calling. It turns
people off and makes them tune out. My intention by enforcing the
anti-name-calling rule is precisely to encourage debate - by focusing on
facts and by keeping a diverse audience talking, or at least listening to
each other.
I've now booted four people in two-and-a-half years. There have basically
been two reasons: persistent name-calling, and non-Minneapolis posts.
Neither has an ideological basis. As many DFLers can attest, I have warned
them for harsh language about Greens; obviously, I have done the same when
the reverse is true.
Some have asked if my rules interpretation forbids members from calling
public officials "corrupt." Not at all. The charge of corruption is a
serious but important one - and if a case can be made for that, or racism,
or any other serious public misdeed, of course such a case should be made
here. But: such a serious charge must be supported & explained, otherwise it
is just a lazy overused insult aimed at people who merely disagree with you.
As you know, I'm a big believer in decorum - not to silence pointed
disagreement, but to facilitate it. If we descend into name-calling - and
believe me, belittling only leads to more belittling - no one will be here
to hear the final ranters chatter.
For those who suggest my list rulings have an ideological caste, examine the
record. We have debated CODEFOR, Hwy 55 protests, racial profiling, police
brutality, ISAG protests, DFL exclusion, you name it. If I'm somehow sucking
up to the "ruling class," how come more than a few sitting politicians view
me suspiciously and are vaguely worried about this list's emergence and
occasional influence? (Not every politician is, of course.)
I'm a sadder man tonight because good people are mad at me. I rarely ask for
anything for maintaining this list, but tonight I request one thing: your
trust. Even if you disagree with my decision regarding David, please believe
it is NOT motivated by my ideology or partisanship.
Two final things: one member very effectively made me realize that my
experiment in "moderating" rule-breakers is wrong-headed. I had originally
set up moderation as a way to avoid kicking chronic rule-breakers off. My
hope was that if I reviewed posts from these members, I could work with them
or at least preserve their worthy contributions by letting their saner posts
go through.
I realize now that that was too invasive. Another big problem is that you,
as members, couldn't see the posts I held, which led to further discipline -
one less check on me. So, starting now, moderation is abolished. I will
still warn people, and repeat violators can be expelled at my discretion as
per list rules.
(Note: our list server is set up to stop posts that aren't in Plain Text
format or have attachments. This is strictly a technical precaution to keep
viruses from getting through, which already happened before this precaution
was put in place. So if your post doesn't show up right away, it's only held
for that reason - I won't review content. I will send all posts through as
soon as I can be sure there's no virus present. Please save my family time
by figuring out how to send messages Plain Text! If you don't know, ask me
how at [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Final thing: for all my blather about decorum, I did wave through a couple
of posts from Basim Sabri that made non-supported non-decorous charges
against two list members. That was not Basim's fault - he was not yet a list
member and it was my job to catch that stuff. I failed. I apologize to Dave
Piehl and Walt Gutzmer. I do, however, ask that future Central debates focus
on issues, facts, and specific, supportable charges (with examples), and try
at all costs to avoid name-calling. It's fine to criticize public actions
but please be specific about what led to your judgment.
As this points out, I am highly fallible (though PERHAPS not as fallible as
some think today. Then again...) My sincere intent is to keep this a civic
commons free of all but the most extreme intervention. I will continue to
re-examine my actions. I thank everyone who wrote in with encouraging notes
today, and also every single member who plans to stay.
Sincerely,
David Brauer
List manager
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
