VirusWiki - View Source: Discuss-Disownment-2003-08-22

You are viewing an old revision of this page. View the current version.
[VirianPolicy]:[Disownment]:[Discuss-Disownment-2003-08-22]

<Lucifer> I need a new title for someone who joins the BBS but not the reputation system

<Hermit> Hmmm, apathete?

<Lucifer> Sounds derogatory

<Lucifer> What would you call someone who attends church events, but hasn't joined the church yet?

<Hermit> A queriant p.pr. of quaerere Which is to inquire or search. Somebody attending services but not "confirmed" (accepted into the community) and thus not permitted to partake of "mass".

* kharin notes that the congregation label has gone.

<Lucifer> Yes, that is the member's group. I may add that back.

<kharin> neophyte?

<Lucifer> neophyte is good. I will use neophyte for now. We can vote on titles later.

<Shadow> re: disownment.  I would first comment on Hermit's wiki piece that the difference between disownment and excommunication seems very conceptually clear rather than your statement that they are difficult to distinguish. Against the world vs. against the individual seems fairly clear.

<Shadow> almost to the "how could you miss it, point". Pre-emptively hedging in this case seems to unecessarily weaken your point.

<Lucifer> I don't think it is that clear. Against the world? what does that mean?

<Shadow> It means that we do not want this individual to represent CoV to the world at large, not that this person is inherently bad.

<Hermit> Hmmm. We make no judgement of the person. Only how the world - and the membership - sees this person in relation to us.

<Shadow> right.  Perhaps on a personal level some may or some may not judge them, but collectively we only state for the community that they do not speak for us.

<Shadow> them=disowned persons

<Hermit> No. Them=world. Because that is what a disownment does. That is all that a disownment does. They are not part of us after that. They can become part of us again, but because a state of tabula rasa would not exist, the barriers to acceptance would be higher.

<Shadow> Hmm, I think you misunderstand me, but I probably have been less than clear.  Collectively we only state for the community that they don't speak to the world for us.

<Hermit> I was trying to emphasise that the outcome of disownership is that the disownee simply becomes part of the world at large that is not part of the community.

<Shadow> right.  That's how I saw it too.

<Lucifer> I think it is important to distinguish between disownment and excommunication because of the nasty connotations associated with the latter

<Shadow> But I don't think that's a conceptually difficult thing.

<Lucifer> excommunication = condemnation in a lot of minds

<Hermit> Right. Why I included that section from the quaker piece (with necessary adaptations).

<Shadow> right, we need to distinguish it that way.  But I don't think it is difficult to do.

<Hermit> Perhaps I shouldn't raise it.

<Shadow> I would just word your caveates differently.

<Hermit> Simply emphasise that it is merely a separation on grounds of incompatability? That it is equivalent to a ""no fault" divorce?

<Shadow> right, good example.

<Hermit> Would you like to take a shot at editing around that section Shadow?

<referent> Herm: After seeing your whole point-of-view layed out, I have to second it strongly.  Maybe some political fine tuning of the wording is in order, but it goes a long way toward our taking a coherent group position.

<Hermit> Thank you referent

<Shadow> what's the wiki link?

<Hermit> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment

<referent> It seems to me that most members really have a very similiar point of view on the topic, but different levels of concern over how much a procedure like this might become a part of our regular operations.

<Hermit> I see a few minor changes being required. e.g. where I say, "or use our on-line facilities" what that means is "or use our on-line facilities except as in so far as they are publically viewable", or maybe, "or use our on-line facilities except in so far as they are available to the public"

<Hermit> referent: I hope I have made it clear that this is not a "normal" procedure.

<referent> yes, that is why i applauded it

<Lucifer> what, no weekly witch hunt? ;)

<Hermit> It would apply to newcomers who are "Religious Apologists" or "solipsists" who decline to follow the off-topic rules, and to longer term members only after all other avenues are exhausted. As I explained to somebody else, I think that if this had been in place from our founding in 1995, that there would have been at most 5 applications of it.

<Shadow> there you go, Hermit, a small deletion and the message is just as clear as before.

<Shadow> What do you think?

<Hermit> Looking now shadow.

<Lucifer> http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/Disownment?action=diff

<Shadow> Because other churches also at times revoke the membership of individuals on account of their disapproved behavior it is natural to think of Disownment as another word for excommunication; however, the two concepts are not identical, and the CoV repudiates the term excommunication. The precise difference basically consists in this: that excommunication is aimed at the offender, whereas Disownment is aimed at the world. This needs s

* Lucifer is impressed with the diff facility

<Shadow> okay. well then put it back.

<Shadow> I just think you can explain it rather cleary and Hermit does so.

<Lucifer> Why put it back?

<Shadow> Getting to that point probably takes some pondering however, . . .

<Lucifer> I think your change is an improvement

<Shadow> i dunno Lucifer.  I was just offering a slight wording suggestion.  It's not that important to me. Okay thanks :-)

<Shadow> I would just rather hear myself saying "let's be precise" rather than "this is going to be difficult".

<Hermit> Shadow good point. Effective edit.
discuss this page on the BBS