RE: [atlarge-discuss] Motions under vote, time-frame and who has as yet voted

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Since the motion covers the fact that the moderators (3) among
themselves decide on how to and what, within the rules and considering
that we expect these people to be members with reasonable minds and
considering the fact that appeal is open against decisions of the
moderators with the panel, it is my idea that more then enough
safeguards are in place to prevent such abuse. Please let me know if you
see this differently and make a proposal-text of what you would like to
add to the rules.

Pls remember, rules on moderation are and will always be a livgin
document.

Kind regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Siren [mailto:sirenj@earthlink.net] 
> Sent: 02 July 2003 14:40
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Motions under vote, time-frame 
> and who has as yet voted
> 
> 
> Abel Wisman wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > 
> > Motion 2003-16 Moderated Members only Maillist:
> > 
> > Whereas it is decided that there will be a moderated members only 
> > mailing list;
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> > 
> > 4. Provocations by way of false statements.
> > Many of the people that will congregate on the icannatlarge 
> ML, have 
> > interacted with each other before. To forestall a repeat 
> the pattern 
> > of character assassination that has prevailed on other 
> mailing lists, 
> > the following rules will apply with regards to False Statements:
> > 
> > False statements can be made innocently as a result of an honest 
> > mistake in recollection. However, they can also serve as highly 
> > effective provocations that skirt the civility rule.
> > 
> > a. When an allegedly false statement is made, each member who knows 
> > otherwise has the right to challenge the statement with the comment 
> > FALSE or PLEASE RETRACT. However, the member being challenged may 
> > ignore the challenge without fear of repercussion unless the 
> > challenging member quotes the exact statement being challenged and 
> > states the basis on which the challenging member knows the 
> statement 
> > to be false. b. When such a challenge is issued, the poster so 
> > challenged must provide evidence of the truth of his 
> statement within 
> > 5 days, or retract. c. Repeated refusal to retract unproven 
> statements 
> > is followed by removal from the Mailing list. d. When the 
> challenged 
> > statement is a negative, (such as "I have never
> > said...") and therefore not provable, the challenger must provide 
> > proof that the statement is false or retract his challenge within 5 
> > days. e. Refusal to retract an unproven FALSE challenge in 
> case of a 
> > negative statement can also lead to removal from the Mailing list.
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> > 
> > Motion moved by Sotiris and Hugh
> > 
> > [ ] in favour
> > [ ] opposed
> > [ ] abstain
> > 
> > Voted thus far on this motion: Daniel R Tobias; Hugh Blair; Andre 
> > Rebentisch; David Goldstein; Gilbert Estillore Lumantao; Sotiris 
> > Sotiropoulos
> > 
> > Not yet voted: Ivonne Munoz Torres; Joop Teenstra; Daniel Chirita; 
> > Sebastian Klein
> > 
> 
> I have previously mentioned in a post to Joop that this false 
> statement 
> provision is potentially subject to abuse, since any person 
> at some time 
> might be absent (due to vacation, business travel or illness) 
> for an interval 
> longer than five days.  That person's postings just prior to 
> his/her absence 
> might be challenged by a second person, knowing the first to 
> be unable to 
> respond to a groundless false statement challenge during the provided 
> interval.
> 
> Therefore the moderator(s) must be empowered to take into account any 
> person's expected absence (this need not be announced in a 
> public posting but 
> a private message to the moderator should suffice) before 
> formally acting 
> against him/her.  In certain rare cases, an explanation of 
> absence after the 
> fact might also be acceptable (rules would have to be 
> established to cover 
> this contingency).
> 
> Without this provision, the motion as posted is not adequate.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de