From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 08:43:23 MST
[Bodie 1*]Maybe we should have a bigger discussion about this.
[Hermit 2] I agree. Not just maybe, but definitely. As Casey once pointed
out, the world is full of lamers, and the more members we obtain the more of
them are likely to come visiting. Casey was making the point that using the
only mechanisms we have used to date (attempt persuasion, then peer
pressure, then a flame-fest (another form of persuasion), then ignoring,
then declaring a subject off-topic, then, if somebody persists in ignoring
or evading an off-topic ban, finally ejecting them), has on a number of
occasions made the list an unpleasant and not very productive place for all
of the congregation while a "resolution" was reached. Casey was advocating a
more rigorous "ignoring" policy, as attempted on earlier occasions, but as
previously experienced, that may not be terribly effective - particularly as
not everyone will conform to such a policy. Dylan's suggestion is another
approach, ignore the problem and hope it goes away. That too has been tried
in the past with less than sterling success.
[Hermit 2] Which presents a challenge that sooner or later has to be
resolved, as this is happening too often to be amusing and tends to fragment
the congregation (as is happening now). If we want to grow the CoV, we would
do better to have at least the outline of a generally acceptable policy. So
we should examine our options. These might include (at least):
1) leave our doors open entirely (which means that we will have people who
don't know how to behave in a society "dropping turds in the well");
2) split the list into a collection of smaller lists restricted to subsets
that people can choose to join (and possibly to moderate/not moderate - but
given our small number of active members, this might drop many sub-lists to
a level where they do not have sufficient members to make them viable);
3) we might establish some mechanism which is fair and represents the "will
of the congregation" to moderate the main CoV list (but who determines what
the rules are and how they are applied - such rules tend to get very complex
very quickly if they are to be fair;
4) we might adopt rules where some body (possibly representative) makes this
decision;
5) we might adhere to the existing procedures, possibly formalizing some of
the stages or creating a standard escalation policy;
6) we might appoint a "black rod" or a "silencing judge" to manage this
process;
7) we might select some combination of the above;
8) we might do nothing;
9) We might institute an easier voting system (email so as to restrict it to
list members on the list at the time of the vote being called?) and provide
a "black-ball" mechanism for topics or posters;
10) or, some Virian might have a brainwave and propose something else
entirely.
[Hermit 2] Again, this is definitely worth discussing at length. I am
interested to see what - if anything, might be concluded by the congregation
after such a discussion (realizing that no matter what is discussed or
concluded is not necessarily binding, we are as Dylan pointed out, a church,
not a democracy - but that we will exist only so long as our congregation
finds us worth belonging to).
[Bodie 1] I think we should only kick people from the mailing list when it
is the last possibly resort and that person has been constantly abusive and
destructive to the memespace we have created.
[Hermit 2] I agree again.
[Bodie 1] The recent discussions certainly fall in to that catagory, and I
would support kicking yash if that was what was finally agreed.
[Hermit 2] And again. But then I may be biased. When somebody tells me to
"Fuck Off" I tend to tuck in my heels.
[Bodie 1] Also I would support some kind of voting system and we
would only kick a person if we had something like 90% agreement. I don't
really think a general majority would be a good idea.
[Hermit 2] Going by past experience, in a general vote we might receive only
a handful of votes. This may be because of difficulty with the polling
system we have used in the past (having to log onto YahooGroups) or it may
be that people simply don't feel strongly enough about the issue. In any
case the principle has been to consider carefully the votes cast by those
who make the effort, and to take the opinion expressed in the vote as
indicating what those who are prepared to go to the effort consider to be
correct. My feeling is that a "constitutional vote" which requires a 2/3
vote from those people voting to carry it is most likely appropriate, but
again, this is something which should be discussed by the congregation.
Kind Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT