Re: [atlarge-discuss] list confrontation(s)

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:44:35 +1200, Joop Teernstra
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:

>At 05:30 p.m. 9/06/2003, DPF wrote:
>
>>Who judges whether or not a statement has been adequately proven?
>
>A Judge, if it comes to that. :)
>Normally the elected moderator , or if it is a very important issue for the 
>list, the list subscribers.
>
>It is all very well to find fault or flaws in the rules and I am happy with 
>alternatives, but in the end the question is do we want list members to 
>falsely accuse each other as they please or do we want a list where 
>provocative behaviour is sanctioned.

I'm actually a bit of a believer that if someone accuses someone else
of something, than that person responds and each individual can decide
whom they believe is more credible.  Generally attacking people
backfires on the person doing the attacking which is a strong
incentive against.

>What do you propose instead?

Normal list rules where moderators can suspend people for offensive or
abusive conduct, but not where someone is a "judge" of whom is right
or wrong.  If you want a specific example I would propose the GA
rules.

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

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