Author
|
Topic: The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus (Read 5746 times) |
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
 |
Re: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #45 on: 2003-10-05 20:08:58 » |
 |
henson: acts of violence committed by the KKK, Nazis, Stalin, Red China, white slave owners, State of Israel...the apartheid, the crusades, bombing of hiroshima etc..all occured in non primitive societies. you too believe that wars are triggered off by economic downturns which means that poverty is also a trigger that incites violence. So, poverty too is a form of violence. Those who strive to keep a population poor indirectly contribute to the general violene in the society. Muggings, assault, spousal abuse, rape are all acts of violence.
Imprisonment of a rapist(rape is an act of violence) rather than the murder of the rapist as revenge is a civilised judgement. On the whole, the civilised world will bear more acts of violence(rape) when the rapist engages in serial acts of violence than in a primitive society where there are only two acts of violence, the rape and the subsequent murder of the rapist.
I have no reason to believe that primitive societies are NOT violent at all. However, I do not accept the reasoning attempted to prove that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies. What you are showing me is the study where the researchers are extrapolating *one* form of violence and trying to sell the idea that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies. imo, it is neither valid nor factual.
If there is an absence of strong adherence to the legal system in primitive societies, you have to consider *all* acts of violence including capital punishment, war casualities that occur in non primitive societies. Afterall, non primitive societies are 'ordered' societies where there is a strict enforcement of law and order. Tribal warfare is often caused by friction between clans. It could be over sheep or land or a woman as they are all considered property. Tribal warfare over sheep is the equivalent of countries fighting over oil in terms of intent and significance.
You quoted from johnhorgan.com: "In the 20th century, about 100 million men, women, and children died from war-related causes, including disease and famine. The total would have been 2 billion if our rates of violence had been as high as in the average primitive society."
he also says: ". About 1 percent of all 20th-century males in Europe and the U.S. died of war-related causes. As many as 50 percent of the men in primitive societies were killed by other men."
How many males of the 20th century engages in warfare? If the number of members of a tribe is lesser than the number of population of the 20th century, it is easy to understand why more proportion of men would engage in warfare to defend their own tribe.
here's a thought: there are 4 people in a tribe. the tribe splits and fight each other. one person from each tribe dies. so 50% of the male population died because of an act of violence! On the other hand, what was the total population of europe and US during the 20th century. Of this, how many engaged in warfare? If those who died of violent crimes is one percent, how is this valid as proof that primitive societies are more violent than non primitive societies? this is why statistics is perverse.
btw, as hermit pointed out...my comment re texas frying thousands/yearly is an unfortunate exaggeration indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #46 on: 2003-10-05 20:20:31 » |
|
[Hermit] Despite your brave defense of rudeness,
[Mermaid]I am not defending rudeness anymore than I would defend freedom of expression.
[Hermit]...it does not make for an attractive environment or pleasant reading.
[Mermaid]Are we going for attractive environment or pleasant reading as our 'common goal'?
[Hermit]It also leads to rapid escalation. The difficulty of defining subjective issues is precisely why we don't have "laws" but instead rely on "reconciliation committees" to determine whether people have crossed the borderlines.
[Mermaid]Sure. But its a tad too much when it comes to dictating on how people should talk. People's words and actions speak for themselves. They will be judged accordingly by the members of the community. Their reputation will be directly affected by their actions and words.
[Hermit]The primary intent of the Disciplinary Process being to ensure that the CoV is an attractive and pleasant environment. People who wish to be "creatively rude" to others, need to seek other places to do it.
[Mermaid]So, the DiP is to make CoV look 'clean'. Only those who can adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV? And you imagine that this will attract valuable membership? Those who are willing to conform to 'desired and acceptable behaviour' dictated by DiP...not to mention willing to sign a written apology to be accepted in the group after someone high up finds the person 'rude' and subjects them to DiP proceedings?..Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept like DiP? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
btw...regarding you misquoting me...effective, but transparent tactic to lure me back into this discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #47 on: 2003-10-05 20:22:05 » |
|
hkh and Mermaid, please esatblish another thread for this fascinating discussion about crime rates in primitive societies.
Thank-you
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.80
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #48 on: 2003-10-06 05:41:17 » |
|
I haven't read every message in this thread, but generally I find Mermaid
and Hermit arguing about the degree of control we wish to exert over the
things people say and the ways they act to each other in CoV. I would
point out that continually referring to this as a "disciplinary process"
comes across as needlessly condescending and to me implies an excess in
attempting to control others. I would rather refer to it as simply a
"moderation process". Discipline certainly stands out as something that we
can and would value for the sake of self improvement, but once we have
passed childhood we humans generally don't seem to respond very positively
to external attempts to impose discipline. We do tend to become more
disciplined as individuals when we find a purpose to do so, and tend remain
truer to the disciplines we have nurtured ourselves rather than those we
have adopted to oblige others. I guess I could be wrong about that, but
that seems to reflect my experiences anyway.
I don't find as imperative as Hermit seems to imply that we really get down
and start parsing out all "rudeness" however subtle from our posts or else
face the discipline of the community. I don't say this as any defense of
rudeness, but just as a reasonable acknowledgement of both the unnecessity
and the impracticality of such an undertaking. That said, I think we can
definitely address some of the lower, dumber, more obviously explicit,
schoolyard/bathroom cases of insult and ad hominem. I guess the idea for
me simplifies down to a couple of principles #1) that if you intend to
insult someone, that you should at least expend the effort to wrap it up
intelligently enough so it doesn't seem so obvious to the casual browser
even if it translates into a really nasty blow for those paying close
enough attention to the exchange. If one must flame, flame like and adult,
don't insult like a child. #2) That if you follow #1) it will result in
your insulting people less in the first place since to do so takes a lot
more mental effort than simply calling someone an asshole, dipshit, idiot,
etc. . . That way, even when you do turn up the flames, it won't come off
as offensively to those more casual browsers who may have just walked in
the door so to speak, and may not yet share what ever righteous indignation
you may have developed through the history of your exchange.
In a sentence: if you must get ugly, just make sure at the beginning, at
the middle, as well as at the end of the day that you at least maintain a
minimal appearance of maturity through it.
We have people wandering in all the time so it helps to keep this "in the
middle of things" perspective in mind. When you do so, you need not do so
not out of any kindness for your enemy, as you really do this out
consideration for everyone else who has to share the same cyberspace with
both of you. I don't think that trying to enforce discipline will get us
where we need to go. In fact I could see how obsessing about this too much
can have a chilling effect, where in our zeal to become pleasant we
collapse into triviality as more interesting and important discussions
simply become too dangerous and prone to occasional bouts of "rudeness".
We can collectively deal with the more obviously disruptive behaviors (like
flooding and/or spamming-types of activities), and the more childish
insults without having to indulge ourselves in some extreme community
regimen of thought and attitude policing.
Just my few thoughts on it.
Love,
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Mermaid <hidden@lucifer.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 10/05/2003 5:20:32 PM
> Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
>
>
> [Hermit] Despite your brave defense of rudeness,
>
> [Mermaid]I am not defending rudeness anymore than I would defend freedom
of expression.
>
> [Hermit]...it does not make for an attractive environment or pleasant
reading.
>
> [Mermaid]Are we going for attractive environment or pleasant reading as
our 'common goal'?
>
> [Hermit]It also leads to rapid escalation. The difficulty of defining
subjective issues is precisely why we don't have "laws" but instead rely on
"reconciliation committees" to determine whether people have crossed the
borderlines.
>
> [Mermaid]Sure. But its a tad too much when it comes to dictating on how
people should talk. People's words and actions speak for themselves. They
will be judged accordingly by the members of the community. Their
reputation will be directly affected by their actions and words.
>
> [Hermit]The primary intent of the Disciplinary Process being to ensure
that the CoV is an attractive and pleasant environment. People who wish to
be "creatively rude" to others, need to seek other places to do it.
>
> [Mermaid]So, the DiP is to make CoV look 'clean'. Only those who can
adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV?
And you imagine that this will attract valuable membership? Those who are
willing to conform to 'desired and acceptable behaviour' dictated by
DiP...not to mention willing to sign a written apology to be accepted in
the group after someone high up finds the person 'rude' and subjects them
to DiP proceedings?..Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept
like DiP? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
>
> btw...regarding you misquoting me...effective, but transparent tactic to
lure me back into this discussion...
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=294
37>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #49 on: 2003-10-06 05:35:11 » |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 06 October 2003 01:03
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
[Hermit 2] Have you ever heard of the "broken Windows theory"? It is a
proven police methodology. It is because of this that I would like to see
every infraction, however small, dealt with by means of the "Disciplinary
Process." Usually, when valid grounds are established, only resulting in an
"acknowledgement." This makes it not only unneccesary for a person
perceiving a "swipe" at them to respond, but also means that they too will
consider an on-list response carefully, lest it result in a "Disciplinary
Process" being instituted for them.
[Hermit 2] Within a very short time, the members will tidy up their acts,
and our environment will become a much more pleasant place for all, enabling
us to pursue our larger goals more effectively. A highly recommended article
which explains the psychology behind this is "Broken Windows"
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/windows.htm).
[Jonathan Davis 3] I like the article on my blog last year
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/weblog/archive/2002_10_25_old.php#85601645
. Coincidentally, It was October of 2002. Just under one year ago.
[Hermit 4] A competent article. Incidently, as you would have found had you
gone there, the same article as I refered to. And the first to appear in a
google search. So a lot of people obviously feel the same way about it.
[Jonathan 4] linked was replaced with like by As-U-Type . So the sentence
was supposed to read "I linked to the article on my blog last year", thus I
was saying, I linked to THE SAME article last year.
[Jonathan Davis 3] I recommend you read a criticism of the theory (for
balance): Policing Disorder - Can we reduce serious crime by punishing
petty offences? http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.2/harcourt.html.
[Hermit 4] Also a good article, but not relevant to the circumstances here.
Rather than a crackdown to prevent "serious crime" (which fortunately can't
happen here), we have established a "community-librarian (to extend the
parable - police is so authoritarian) relationship exercise" with the intent
not of "arresting" more "offenders", but of reducing the inevitable
progression of "disorder" to "more disorder" and by intervening early,
reducing the need to invoke the only effective sanctions - other than
community disapproval - we have - to dissassociate the community from the
offender either through silencing or disownment.
[Jonathan 4] I agree that intervention is a sound but I have observed that
disorder in this forum almost always involves more than one individual,
usually locked in a dispute and contributing to the problem in different
ways. Rather than focusing on individual "offenders", I think we might look
at ways of breaking unhelpful cycles of communication. "Offenders" are born
of situations which can be prevented or stopped fairly easily. Post facto
"sanctions" may be useful for cases where spite or malice are involved and
the community simply wants to boot an obviously deleterious offender, but
they are less effective where the wrongdoing is not agreed on or based on
provocation. In such cases - in my experience the majority - the situation
giving rise to offensive behaviour needs to be disrupted. It is only if
those efforts are ignored or violated that the more serious personal
sanctioning procedures ought to be activated.
The danger is that individuals may (and in my opinion have) used the appeals
for sanctions glibly, reducing them to little more that playground yells for
teacher-to-punish-because-he-called-me-a-name.
I will be reading through your thread with Mermaid to try and catch up with
where the debate has gone over the weekend.
[Jonathan Davis 1] On a personal level, your apparent deep involvement in
the system makes me distrust it.
[Hermit 4] The request was to keep the replies impersonal, so your comment
is off-topic. In addition, while you are welcome to hold any opinions you
like, expressing negative opinions of other members is not part of what this
community stands for.
[Jonathan Davis 2] I will decide for myself what this community stands for.
[Hermit 4] The community has already decided this, and instituted a process
to determine if those standards are being adhered to - and appropriate
responses when a determination is made that they are.
[Jonathan 4] I do not consider you a community spokesman nor do I consider
you an authority on what this community stands for. Your statement was
noted, but as I said, I will make my own determination as to what this
community stands for.
[Jonathan Davis 3] Furthermore, my comment was a personal aside to you about
an attitude of mine. It is a relevant truth that may aid your understanding
of me and so further our goals of empathy, vision and reason.
[Hermit 4] A letter sent to some 1600+ people, and appearing on a public BBS
is never personal, and nobody needs to be clairevoyant to determine your
"attitude" or the fact that public spats, particularly when completely
unneccesary due to your assertion that it was "all in fun" (i.e. deliberate)
are extremely unattractive.
[Jonathan 4] All posts are public, my comment a personal aside to you (which
I suspect has already helped your empathy). You are right about public
spats. They are unattractive, so perhaps you will take your own advice and
stop participating in them. After all, the common denominator in most of
these spats seems to be you: Joe Dees/Hermit, Bill Roh/Hermit, Demon/Hermit,
Jonathan/Hermit and lately Mermaid/Hermit.
[Hermit 4] Please stop.
[Jonathan 4] Yes, please stop.
Let me reiterate: Thanks for all your work on this. I value it.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #50 on: 2003-10-06 06:15:18 » |
|
Sanity roars out!
Thanks Jake. Superb post.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Jake Sapiens
Sent: 06 October 2003 10:41
To: virus
Subject: RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
SNIP
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #51 on: 2003-10-06 09:36:37 » |
|
[Hermit 3] Despite your brave defense of rudeness,
[Mermaid 4]I am not defending rudeness anymore than I would defend freedom of expression.
[Mermaid 4 <moved>] btw...regarding you misquoting me...effective, but transparent tactic to lure me back into this discussion...
[Hermit 5] Oh please, snip yourself and then claim I'm misquoting you?
[Mermaid 2 <restored>] Are you saying now that if people sign up on CoV they cant be RUDE? They'd be disciplined if they *sound* rude to someone else? Rudeness...which btw is awfully subjective....is not "desired and acceptable behaviour"?
[Mermaid 2 <restored>] Rudeness, imo, can be anything from personal expressions to irresponsible parenting ... insecurity or inferiority complex...or just a creative mind or even intelligence...it can be out of ignorance as much as it can be out of spite. The reaction to rude behaviour is what monitors rudeness. Not a document that instructs people how to behave.
[Hermit 5] Rudeness ... can be ... just a creative mind or even intelligence. This isn't a putative defense - an argument not to attempt to manage it?
[Hermit 5] And the idea that it is a document that tells people how to behave is a strawman. It is the librarians telling people how to behave. The document tells the librarians how to go about it and allows others to know how it works.
[Hermit 3]...it does not make for an attractive environment or pleasant reading.
[Mermaid 4]Are we going for attractive environment or pleasant reading as our 'common goal'?
[Hermit 5] If our goal is to spread our memeplex, then yes. An attractive environment and pleasant reading are critical to achieving it. At least, if we can believe that many Virians feel embarrased at suggesting others come here. Do you remember saying anything like that yourself?
[Hermit 3]It also leads to rapid escalation. The difficulty of defining subjective issues is precisely why we don't have "laws" but instead rely on "reconciliation committees" to determine whether people have crossed the borderlines.
[Mermaid 4]Sure. But its a tad too much when it comes to dictating on how people should talk. People's words and actions speak for themselves. They will be judged accordingly by the members of the community. Their reputation will be directly affected by their actions and words.
[Hermit 5] As yours and mine have. But it is a slow process and everyone has to put up with it while it happens, and then it remains in our archives forever as a memorial.
[Hermit 5] But we haven't planned to dictate "how people talk," have we? This is a strawman of your own manufacture. We have said that when people feel offended, we invite them to say so - privately. So the community will decide if it thinks that what you say is "rude" (your word - live with it). And then a committee of people who care about how the CoV is seen and how the members relate will decide if it is worthwhile reacting. And if necessary, will act. And by doing this, we make it unneccesary for members to "defend themselves." Which usually escalates.
[Hermit 3]The primary intent of the Disciplinary Process being to ensure that the CoV is an attractive and pleasant environment. People who wish to be "creatively rude" to others, need to seek other places to do it.
[Mermaid 4]So, the DiP is to make CoV look 'clean'. Only those who can adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV? And you imagine that this will attract valuable membership? Those who are willing to conform to 'desired and acceptable behaviour' dictated by DiP...not to mention willing to sign a written apology to be accepted in the group after someone high up finds the person 'rude' and subjects them to DiP proceedings?..Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept like DiP? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
[Hermit 5] What nice tactics you use. I must remember them. Let me, for a moment pretend that I am not a blind stupid fool to bother responding and see if I understand them correctly.
[Hermit 5] If I may reverse your words, is it that you like the current environment where you can stretch your claws without being slapped? Where, "Only those who cannot adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV" Where only those who having been determined to have harmed the CoV by its most reputable members, absolutely refuse to sign a written apology, that these are the only people worth having in the group?
[Hermit 5] Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept such as you are advocating? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
[Hermit 5] Did I get it right? Is this really how you think we should increase the quality of our debates? Can you see why we need a policy to prevent "communication" like the above. Do you know how very hard it is for me not to answer you in like vein. Over and over and over again? If I don't, it appears that you have "won" the discussion. And you may have inspired some people to try your tactics. See, even Hermit can be defeated by them. When you know damn well I could respond and am holding myself in check. Largely because, if I don't, even if it would help my argument here, I'd end up looking as obnoxious as how you appear to wish to be seen. The already instituted policy is there to prevent exactly this sort of situation. And the lousy quality of debate that follows. Which yes, I think rather damns our Virtues as a fraud. Because we don't exhibit them ourselves in our own community. Not that many Virians don't want to, but it is rather difficult for them when continuously faced by folk who prefer a bit of a riot.
[Hermit 5] Now, have I understood you correctly? Does this say anything about what you think of our goals? Have I "misquoted you"? Take an hour to think about it before you reply.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
kirksteele
Anarch
Posts: 74
Reputation: 3.67
Rate kirksteele
I have never logged in.
|
|
Re: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #52 on: 2003-10-06 09:41:53 » |
|
Mermaid <hidden@lucifer.com> wrote:
[Hermit] Despite your brave defense of rudeness,
[Mermaid]I am not defending rudeness anymore than I would defend freedom of expression.
[Hermit]...it does not make for an attractive environment or pleasant reading.
[Mermaid]Are we going for attractive environment or pleasant reading as our 'common goal'?
[kirksteele] Civil Discourse is a gateway to the effective operation of any forum. We seek civil discourse as the primary means of ensuring effective communication here within CoV.
[Hermit]It also leads to rapid escalation. The difficulty of defining subjective issues is precisely why we don't have "laws" but instead rely on "reconciliation committees" to determine whether people have crossed the borderlines.
[Mermaid]Sure. But its a tad too much when it comes to dictating on how people should talk. People's words and actions speak for themselves. They will be judged accordingly by the members of the community. Their reputation will be directly affected by their actions and words.
[kirksteele] The DiP is the Enforcement Half of the Meridion System. Meridion castes (sic) a vote, DiP enforce subsequent sanctions.
[Hermit]The primary intent of the Disciplinary Process being to ensure that the CoV is an attractive and pleasant environment. People who wish to be "creatively rude" to others, need to seek other places to do it.
[kirksteele] Clarification: Ex "Broken Windows" analogy the predicate of the DiP is to:"Establish a common ground of civil discourse on aprapo topics that forward the 'Pricipia Viriaii' ."
[Mermaid]So, the DiP is to make CoV look 'clean'. Only those who can adhere and conform to 'desirable and accepted behaviour' need apply to CoV? And you imagine that this will attract valuable membership? Those who are willing to conform to 'desired and acceptable behaviour' dictated by DiP...not to mention willing to sign a written apology to be accepted in the group after someone high up finds the person 'rude' and subjects them to DiP proceedings?..Really..cant you see the blind stupidity of a concept like DiP? Its glaringly obvious why its a bad idea....
[kirksteele] Second Vector forwards the following as MANDATORY READING for any would be participants in the "DiPate": http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/windows.htm
btw...regarding you misquoting me...effective, but transparent tactic to lure me back into this discussion...
[kirk] ...it seems to have worked? (curious)
----
This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
attached: index.html
|
"Howdy pawdna. Yeee-freakin-haw!! We got us another good ole boy in da White Wash"
-just shoot me
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #53 on: 2003-10-06 12:01:41 » |
|
[Jake] I haven't read every message in this thread, but generally I find Mermaid and Hermit arguing about the degree of control we wish to exert over the things people say and the ways they act to each other in CoV. I would point out that continually referring to this as a "disciplinary process" comes across as needlessly condescending and to me implies an excess in attempting to control others. I would rather refer to it as simply a "moderation process".
[Hermit] One of the things you may have missed was in the introduction (See Reply 2). Discipline doesn't only mean "doing to" others or yourself. On the other hand, "Moderation" can be both too. But in this context, remembering the screaming matches "moderation" has generated in the past, and the fact that it has a specific meaning in the BBS context, it is to my thinking a much more aggressive word. Moderation is not, generally speaking, a component of the Disciplinary Process.
[Jake] Discipline certainly stands out as something that we can and would value for the sake of self improvement, but once we have
passed childhood we humans generally don't seem to respond very positively to external attempts to impose discipline. We do tend to become more disciplined as individuals when we find a purpose to do so, and tend remain truer to the disciplines we have nurtured ourselves rather than those we have adopted to oblige others. I guess I could be wrong about that, but that seems to reflect my experiences anyway.
[Hermit] Yet I don't think that you will disagree that we are creatures of our environments. And when the environment is "messy" we tend not to bother too much about how carefully we clean up after ourselves. Consider the Disciplinary Process (And no, Im not enraptured by the name either, so if you can suggest some alternates, we may well adopt one - but not moderation which I think is far worse) as a way of cleaning up the environment.
[Hermit] When offended, instead of dashing off a clever put down, dash off a letter asking your opponent to play nice. And do it privately. If that doesn't work - or you can't manage it, ask some referees to step in. I bet you won't do it often - knowing how busy we all are, but the fact that it is available as a process, and the fact that you know it can and will be applied, will make it much easier to not need to respond to silliness,
[Hermit] And while helping with self-discipline, that will clean up our act. And once everyone is used to it, there will always be the reassurance that the system is available in the case of a Brettster, an Aaaaron, an Everettie, a Yash, or a Dees.
[Jake] We have people wandering in all the time so it helps to keep this "in the middle of things" perspective in mind. When you do so, you need not do so not out of any kindness for your enemy, as you really do this out consideration for everyone else who has to share the same cyberspace with both of you.
[Hermit] But until the Meridion, and the Disciplinary Process there was no process to dispose of the obnoxious walk-in other than through unpleasantness. And despite repeated attempts to institute such a system, every time the next "inwardly wandering person" arrived, there was only one way to clean-up. Now we have a process. But we also have a very messy community. The process will hopefully help the community clean-itself up.
[Jake] I don't think that trying to enforce discipline will get us where we need to go. In fact I could see how obsessing about this too much can have a chilling effect, where in our zeal to become pleasant we collapse into triviality as more interesting and important discussions simply become too dangerous and prone to occasional bouts of "rudeness".
[Hermit] "Rudeness" should not be needed with intelligent people. Yet it has become the norm. As the community will institute the process - and others in the community will decide what level of damping is required, the community itseld will set the standards for what the norm ought to be. All the Disciplinary Process defines is the actual process. Not its application. Hopefully nobody is going to obsess about this. And if they do, they too may end up under the same microscope.
[Jake] We can collectively deal with the more obviously disruptive behaviors (like flooding and/or spamming-types of activities), and the more childish insults without having to indulge ourselves in some extreme community regimen of thought and attitude policing.
[Hermit] Without the process, the evidence is all over the BBS that we couldn't. With the process, in place, hopefully we can.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #54 on: 2003-10-06 12:20:43 » |
|
<snip>
[Jonathan 4] I agree that intervention is a sound but I have observed that disorder in this forum almost always involves more than one individual, usually locked in a dispute and contributing to the problem in different ways. Rather than focusing on individual "offenders", I think we might look at ways of breaking unhelpful cycles of communication.
[Hermit 5] Notice that the reconciliation comittee are empowered to deal with problems. Not just "accused" individuals. Their task is to evaluate and act. First for the good of the CoV, then for the good of the individuals. And that scope includes the "society", the "complainant" and the "accused". As you note, problems, when they do exist are seldom individual. But instead of dasdhing off a reply which points fingers, the process encourages some thought, and if you really have a problem, a quiet letter either to the the individual or to the council. Either way, there us no "locked in dispute" nor is there, "contributing to the problem." And it is not just the parties involved who are encouraged to react like this. When somebody is watching a silly, ugly dispute from the sidelines and slowly becoming annoyed, they no longer have an incentive to "butt in", instead there is a simple well understood mechanism to "butt out" - and if needed ask for the dispute to be damped.
[Jonathan 4] "Offenders" are born of situations which can be prevented or stopped fairly easily.
[Hermit 5] And usually, the earlier the simpler. Yes?
[Jonathan 4] Post facto "sanctions" may be useful for cases where spite or malice are involved and the community simply wants to boot an obviously deleterious offender, but they are less effective where the wrongdoing is not agreed on or based on provocation. In such cases - in my experience the majority - the situation giving rise to offensive behaviour needs to be disrupted.
[Hermit 5] Agreed. Why the process looks the way it does. Spite and malice are not involved because - so far as possible, the reconciliation committees are uninvolved and their motivation is reconciliation where possible, damping of the situation when reconciliation is not possible.
[Jonathan 4] It is only if those efforts are ignored or violated that the more serious personal sanctioning procedures ought to be activated.
[Hermit 5] Sanctions can involve simply putting somebody on notice that a process is available. Silly to do it in public perhaps.
<snip>
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #55 on: 2003-10-06 19:06:34 » |
|
Here's my thoughts on the "Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus".
http://www.walterwatts.com/images/covbootcamp.mp3
Walter
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
ElvenSage
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 288
Reputation: 7.48
Rate ElvenSage
Think for yourself, question authority.
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #56 on: 2003-10-07 00:14:04 » |
|
Quality post Jake. I never get tired of that mp3 walt. That thing has to be one of the most halarious things I've heard in my life. Go Full Metal Jacket!
The main problem I have with the system is that I do not think it is a system that the majority of the CoV really agrees on when it comes down to it. I think that our definition of what is unwanted is all different, yet I think that what a few see as "unwanted" is what is going to become censored.
|
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils
See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do.
Just stay with me, safe and ignorant,
Go back to sleep
Go Back to sleep
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #57 on: 2003-10-07 09:28:23 » |
|
Elvensage stated (without supporting why):
1 The main problem I have with the system is that I do not think it is a system that the majority of the CoV really agrees on when it comes down to it.
2 I think that our definition of what is unwanted is all different,
3 yet I think that what a few see as "unwanted" is what is going to become censored.
He forgot to tell us why he thought this. Please do Elvensage.
After all, your words raise some questions:
1 Does Elvensage have some mechanism for determining what "the majority" of the CoV "really" agrees on? I thought that all we knew was that those who voted liked it. Repeatedly. I wonder how Elvensage knows what the 1600 odd non-voters like? Even granted that this claim is true, and even granted that they care what is said here, and even granted that they agree with Elvensage, who seems to disagree but hasn't yet explained why, should we take the apathetic uninvolved's views into account?
2 This is possible. Let's check. I think that if somebody is made unhappy by what somebody else says about others, that we should think very carefully whether we want what was said on our forums (not that this would mean that it is automatically going to be banned). We think that after a while, people will learn the new patterns and adopt less hostile communication styles. So the primary objective is to prevent verbal attacks which are perceived as unpleasant and hostile. Does Elvensage think that such all too frequent personal attacks should be permitted with impunity?
3 Elvensage thinks that the "unwanted" will be "censored". I wonder why he thinks that. Perhaps he would explain:
3.1 exactly where he sees the mechanism for "censorship"
3.2 why he thinks that a private organization with clearly defined goals should permit its platforms to be used to destroy its goals (by making them unattractive)? Which other organizations can Elvensage name that do this?
3.3 For example, does Elvensage know of churches that encourage people to spray graffiti on their notice boards and heckle the congregation?
3.4 Whether he thinks that 3.3 is a good idea,
3,5 Whether a private organization can practice censorship.
3.6 What exactly Elvensage sees as "censorship"
Hermit.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.39
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #58 on: 2003-10-07 13:55:53 » |
|
Inspired by Hermit's appeal for clarity from Elvensage, I have assembled my
own set of questions about the document and the propositions it makes:
Given the purpose of Disciplinary actions is "to maintain public
credibility of the Church of Virus. Disciplinary actions' primary purpose is
to protect the Church of Virus from disrepute", can it be made clear what
constitutes "public credibility" and "disrepute"?
I notice the preamble seeks to exclude "people who are at open variance with
the Body, either in principle or practice" because their presence "makes it
difficult or impossible to maintain order and civility in our
deliberations." Can this line of reasoning be please be supported? Who will
be judging what the Body "is" so that we may determine those who are "at
variance"? What about existing members who vary from the Body in "principle
and practice"? Will it be a case that even if they are accepted within the
"community of the willing" they will be automatically excluded because of
arbitrarily defines transgressions? Does this not perhaps risk persecution
of minority dissenters and *alleged* apostates? Does the Body represent
dogma or fixed attitudes, principles, beliefs or political affiliations?
Who are the "we" as in "we emphasise that disciplinary actions are only
undertaken by the community"? Who sets out who will be "acting for the
community" and where can we I find clear descriptions of what "protect[ing]
the community, its name, its reputation, its goals, its members and our
principles" involves? Are there definitions of what constitutes violating
the community's good name? Who decides if our goals or principles have been
injured?
What does "manifesting disunity with the Church of Virus" mean? Who judges
this? Who decides what constitutes "inconsistent or disorderly conduct"? Why
is "creation of dissension in the community" a problem where free thinking
and free speaking are implied virtues as rationalists?
Do we have clear definitions or at least examples of "principles and
practices contrary to the "Virian Virtues" and "Senseless Sins""? Can these
be objectively tested?
What are "the necessary rules of our community"?
Is this whole thing based on the Mormon principle of disfellowship and is it
worthwhile discussing the problems encountered with their similar system?
What is a "wrong action"? Who are the "Virian Council"? Will all votes and
minutes be made public in the case of a disownment? How will the Arch Vector
be appointed?
Enough for now.
Kind regards
Jonathan
P.S Regarding Elvensage's claims, I also think there is a general sense of
unease about these proposals. I also think that there is confusion over what
is "in" and what is "out" in terms of specific acceptable behaviours. I
think the document is too vague and I agree that as these procedures
proposes censure, which is a tool of manipulation and control, they may be
(ab)used to silence dissent, minority opinions or perceived heresies
(regardless of rational merit) that are bannered under arbitrarily defined
labels such as "disorderly conduct", "creation of dissention", "wrong
actions" or "bringing the CoV into disrepute".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 07 October 2003 14:28
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
Elvensage stated (without supporting why):
1 The main problem I have with the system is that I do not think it is a
system that the majority of the CoV really agrees on when it comes down to
it.
2 I think that our definition of what is unwanted is all different,
3 yet I think that what a few see as "unwanted" is what is going to become
censored.
SNIP
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
« Reply #59 on: 2003-10-07 14:51:02 » |
|
[Jonathan Davis 1] Given the purpose of Disciplinary actions is "to maintain public credibility of the Church of Virus. Disciplinary actions' primary purpose is to protect the Church of Virus from disrepute", can it be made clear what constitutes "public credibility" and "disrepute"?
[Hermit 2] This is deliberately left up to the Congregation itself, in that they assign a reputation to members which results in those considered "reputable" by Meridion exercising their judgement as to what these terms mean. Essentially this is to guide council members and reconciliation committees as to the intent that they should be applying when acting. In other words, limiting the ambit in which they make judgements.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I notice the preamble seeks to exclude "people who are at open variance with the Body, either in principle or practice" because their presence "makes it difficult or impossible to maintain order and civility in our deliberations." Can this line of reasoning be please be supported?
[Hermit 2] We are a voluntary association of the willing, and welcome those who share our interests and goals and proclaim themselves Virians by attempting to adhere to our "Virian Virtues" and avoid our "Senseless Sins". Those who do not are still able to participate if they behave appropriately, but we are not obligated to provide them a platform or allow them to cause chaos on our facilities.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who will be judging what the Body "is" so that we may determine those who are "at variance"?
[Hermit 2] The CoV has formalised this. See http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianTitles
[Jonathan Davis 1] What about existing members who vary from the Body in "principle and practice"? Will it be a case that even if they are accepted within the "community of the willing" they will be automatically excluded because of arbitrarily defines transgressions?
[Hermit 2] The process deliberately does not define any "transgressions", so they cannot be arbitrary. It is left to the judgement of those entrusted with supervising the process.
[Hermit 2] Meridion defines the "community of the willing" for the Congregation, and those not in the Congregation have chosen not to join with the body. Any action in terms of the Disciplinary Process is intended primarily to reconcile those at variance with the community or vice versa with one another. Given this, and the fact that "disownment" is a last resort, it is highly unlikely that any person accepted by the community (as reflected by Meridion) would ever be "excluded" unless they chose to be.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Does this not perhaps risk persecution of minority dissenters and *alleged* apostates?
[Hermit 2] Not unless you imagine that the most reputable in this community are lilely to do so. And that the balance of the Congregation would not respond.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Does the Body represent dogma or fixed attitudes, principles, beliefs or political affiliations?
[Hermit 2] There is no dogma in the CoV. As to the rest, you would need to ask our members or look through our various documents to determine for yourself what opinions are and are not held by our membership.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who are the "we" as in "we emphasise that disciplinary actions are only undertaken by the community"?
[Hermit 2] We are the collective opinion of the Congregation of the CoV as established through Meridion.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who sets out who will be "acting for the community"
[Hermit 2] The VirianTitles link above, and those pages linked to it, sets out the emergent system.
[Jonathan Davis 1] and where can we I find clear descriptions of what "protect[ing] the community, its name, its reputation, its goals, its members and our principles" involves?
[Hermit 2] You would need to ask those on one of the reconciliation committees to make a determination on an actual case. I cannot project their minds or respond to hypothetical situations, and don't recommend that others do either.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Are there definitions of what constitutes violating the community's good name? Who decides if our goals or principles have been injured?
[Hermit 2] That would be up to the council and the reconciliation committees to determine on a case-by-case basis.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What does "manifesting disunity with the Church of Virus" mean?
[Hermit 2] Like "pornography" it is a term relatively difficult to define and easy to tell when you see it. Fortunately, we don't need to develop a legal system and code. We can rely on the judgement of those whom we deem "reputable" to make this determination.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who judges this?
[Hermit 2] It would be established on a case-by-case basis, in the first place, the reconciliation committees, in the second the Virian Council.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who decides what constitutes "inconsistent or disorderly conduct"?
[Hermit 2] As above.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Why is "creation of dissension in the community" a problem where free thinking and free speaking are implied virtues as rationalists?
[Hermit 2] Because dissension occurs between people, not between ideas.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Do we have clear definitions or at least examples of "principles and practices contrary to the "Virian Virtues" and "Senseless Sins""? Can these be objectively tested?
[Hermit 2] No and no. I'm sure you could think up some if you tried.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What are "the necessary rules of our community"?
[Hermit 2] The minimum nuber of rules required to maximise the pleasure and usefulness of our structures for the Congregation.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Is this whole thing based on the Mormon principle of disfellowship and is it worthwhile discussing the problems encountered with their similar system?
[Hermit 2] I didn't examine any Mormon systems when developing this structure. I can't speak for the others who were involved. As I don't know their systems, or the problems they have encountered, I am not sure how useful such a discussion would be.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What is a "wrong action"?
[Hermit 2] An action which causes harm.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who are the "Virian Council"?
[Hermit 2] They are the PrimeVector and six ArchVectors selected by the Prime Vector from amongst the Luminaries. Refer to VirianCouncil and VirianTitles on the Wiki.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Will all votes and minutes be made public in the case of a disownment?
[Hermit 2] No part of the disciplinary process will be public. It is no business of anyone except those directly involved.
[Jonathan Davis 1] How will the Arch Vector be appointed?
[Hermit 2] By the PrimeVector.
[Jonathan Davis 1] P.S Regarding Elvensage's claims, I also think there is a general sense of unease about these proposals.
[Hermit 2] I have noticed five people raise queries and 3 making objections. Given 50+ members of the Congregation and 1600+ members of the CoV, I don't think that you are correct.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I also think that there is confusion over what is "in" and what is "out" in terms of specific acceptable behaviours.
[Hermit 2] So far, we know that bombarding us with c&p articles, christian apologetics, continuous assertions of bigoted statements about other groups and disparagement of others is not welcome to the community. I'm sure it will determine (through discussion, voting, reputing and complaining) identify any others that are not welcome.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I think the document is too vague and I agree that as these procedures proposes censure, which is a tool of manipulation and control, they may be (ab)used to silence dissent, minority opinions or perceived heresies (regardless of rational merit) that are bannered under arbitrarily defined labels such as "disorderly conduct", "creation of dissention", "wrong actions" or "bringing the CoV into disrepute".
[Hermit 2] I notice that the US code takes up approximately 7 linear feet on my bookcase and is updated regularly. They attempt to define "crimes" with precision. Yet, even so, many court cases are largely about defining what is and is not permitted or forbidden by that code. As I don't wish to attempt to rival their output, and haven't seen any volunteers who do; very much doubt that if such a document were written that it would ever be read; suspect that if such a document were written it could be weaselled around anyway; and as I don't think we want or need to establish a court system, we have taken the approach of relying on "reputable" members of the congregation, with the interests of the CoV and membership at heart, to interpret these things for us, guided by process which authorises them to do this on our behalf. If you want to change this, I suggest you start writing.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
