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

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 05:34 p.m. 11/06/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:

> |  3. Remain civil at all times, even when you feel provoked. Persistent
> |  incivility will be rewarded with removal from the Forum.
>
> Some thought will need to go into how such a removal process would work.
The elected moderator may be given some latitude to request the list-admin 
to bar individuals. The list admin is the one with the ultimate means to do it.

> "Incivility" needs to be specifically defined.
Very hard to define in a multicultural context and always easy to evade, 
once defined.
Easier to define "persistent" , but  there too, once it is defined, it can 
be skirted.
(sigh)

> |  Doing so willfully may lead to you being immediately and
> |  permanently banned or you posting rights being restricted.
>
> Permanently?  Have to be a pretrty serious violation to invoke that, I would
> think!
Of course. More likely a pattern of violations.

> |  Civility includes not to repost private correspondence, unless such
> |  correspondence was abusive or threatening and its reposting is in the
> |  public interest.
>
> OK, I guess, although I've always believed private is private.
I think people should be free to report and quote unsolicited threats, 
insults and harassments. Apart from that exception I strongly  agree with 
you that private is private.

With regards to limiting list traffic, I am not so much thinking of your 
"burst mode" (when people travel it is inevitable),  but more of  a few 
people holding an inane dialog or a slanging match that takes up bandwidth.
In most cases a warning from the moderator should be sufficient to curb that.

-joop-


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