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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Abel and all fellow members,

  The proposed "Rules" are onerous and an affront to healthy
Discourse as well a gross form of Censorship.  In addition
what is a "livgin document."?  Do you actually mean
LIVING DOCUMENT?

Abel Wisman wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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