As a member of the List Committee, can I offer a few entirely personal observations on the process. These are in no way representative of the views of the other members of the committee. One of the reasons for this is also part of the reason the announcement of the suspension came so long after the posting about Giggs: the committee is comprised of (mainly) busy people (not me, obviously) spread out across several continents and time zones. Having a discussion across the committee simply takes time. The other reason the decision took a while was that we had exactly the same forwards and backwards discussions about freedom of speech, pandering to loud voices, etc, etc. that have been touched on in the recent flurry of comments on the list.
Regarding the suspension of Ed, let me first say that I've been on the list committee since it was set up several years ago. During that time I've never seen a single committee member who's wanted to suspend anyone. I can't think of a single instance where mediation and persuasion wasn't the first approach. Most of the work the committee does (which thankfully isn't much) is behind the scenes rather than on the list, and 90% of it is solved by talking to the peron or persons involved in the issue. The aim of the committee as far as I can see is to protect the list's existence and to try to keep the static on and off the list within reasonable bounds. Compared to some of the lists I've been on, I think we try hard to be non-interventionist and let things work themselves out (we don't vet members or messages, and generally allow off-topic threads to run out of steam themselves). Messages on the main list are generally either: to defend the list (e.g. the one on the recent speculation sweeping the internet - not to defend the list owners (or board) from fear of libel action but from concern that the notably easily-leant-on Yahoo could close the list); as a last resort to ask for the end of threads that don't die a natural death; and to suspend people. Suspension is our last resort, but to be honest it's not a very fearsome weapon. As many of you pointed out, it's the easiest thing in the world to come back on using another e-mail address. So it's mainly symbolic, but all we have left when persuasion has failed. Personally I find the majority of Ed's posts are harmless, while indicating a very superficial knowledge of the game of football that can be extremely irritating. But no harm in that - it's only my opinion and he's more than entitled to his (and as I virtually never post to the list anymore I have no right to complain). However, every so often he throws in a comment of such astonishing offensiveness to me that my jaw drops and I instinctively reach to reply. I've always controlled myself until now (Giggs was close) but I can understand people who do respond. In an ideal world everyone who has a problem with him would ignore him (filter the messages, allow people to subscribe to an Ed-Free Digest, etc) and the committee would not have to act. However, people do react and ye Olde Traditional Ed Dance starts, whereby he doggedly repeats the same position over and over again, and each time he does another bunch of messages come in having a go at him. The static on the list threatens to spiral out of control, and we risk losing a bunch of members who just get plain tired of it all (and believe me, not just the vociferous ones). So we tried suggesting everyone just ignore him - didn't work. He was suspended last year and councelled to think of the impact of his messages - they continue to provoke half the list. In my mind the recent Giggs comment produced a second yellow - the first was gained over the last few months for persistent niggling. Had he stated that Alex was wrong for playing Giggs upfront, I'd not have agreed to the suspension; had he said that Alex was a bad manager and had lost the plot, I'd have laughed but not voted for a suspension; but to suggest that he'd be happy to see a United player suspended, and then to doggedly stand by that statement... He must have known the impact such a statement would have had,and thus I felt that a suspension was justified: not to punish him for that comment, but to try again to get him to at least think through the consequences of his actions in the future. As I said earlier, it's not much of a sanction, but it's all we have. So were we right to do it? I don't know (there was a lot of discussion), but I feel comfortable with it. In terms of a response from Ed, I haven't seen anything yet for this one, but for the last suspension it was basically "What me, ref, I never did nothing". And that in my eyes is the problem we're trying to address - it can be hard to gauge what the line is between fair and offensive comment on the list, but Ed crosses it so often and by such a wide margin (and has been doing it for so long) that he's either (a) doing it on purpose or (b) incapable of addressing the problem through discussion and persuasion. In either case, some "punishment" (even so mild) is all that's left. And I don't think this is a free speech or censorship issue. Does Ed have the right to say he'd like to see Giggs suspended? I'd fight for that right, in the same way as I'd fight for the right for people to be able to say they'd like to see a United player injured, or to make offensive comments about Munich, or to make a multitude of other statements I'd personally find offensive. But not on a private discussion list dedicated to Manchester United. If you're really looking for a First Amendment issue, I'll send you plenty of realy serious ones to focus on. Regarding the undemocratic nature of the list committee, personally I think there were some good points made. To be honest, it's not as though this is a glamorous job (I never got around to putting it in my Who's Who entry) and there's never been many volunteers. CP asked a bunch of us to help out when things got too busy for him to handle alone, and we've kind of muddled on, replacing people here and there when necessary. It seemed to have got to the nice point a while back where people had forgotten we existed. There have been a few changes to the committee recently (as Paul recently announced on the list) and we were planning to review the role and makeup of the committee, as well as taking a look at the list charter, etc. I certainly personally think there should be as much input from list members as possible in this, but I doubt if the 1200 members want this discussion on the main list (most of them no doubt also don't want this message). There is a mailing list for the committee [EMAIL PROTECTED] which everyone is free to send input/suggestions to. Let me discuss with the rest of the committee some ideas for making the discussion on how to run the list more open without cluttering up the main list (separate mailing list, separate discussion area, etc) and we'll post something back at some point (but don't hold your breath - we ain't fast). Sorry for the long post, but there were some good comments out there and wanted to at least partially explain one person's thoughts and provide some transparancy. Feel free to flame personally or on list (no suspensions for taking pops at the committee). Here's to a big win tomorrow (and no suspensions), Steve W. NOT on behalf of the List Committee ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GtUolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Subscription info WWW http://red11.org/list Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] = subscribe to the list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] = unsubscribe from the list. Post message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
