[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 00:02 10/06/03, Joop Teernstra said:
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.

we have seen instances of accusations which are better ignored than responded to.
I think you are right. I took some vacations days for Pentecost WE just poping in a few minutes (in France we had a bankholidays). How refereshing it was :-) I went through the few intimidations mails I received (I must say that I send a few persons' mails to trash so may be there are more?).

I understand that building something makes a good target for breakers, so I am glad to permit some to enjoy their life. They only show we built somthing. Thx to them for this testimony.

I hope everything will go well for one of them and he gets quick the ICANN/GMPP job he hopes and works for so much.

I must also add that I am impressed by the self control effort of Sotiris (even if there are some leaks). Yet I do not think (but this is a personal opinion) he helped us much during the last month making us to waste time and to lose Members. But I must admit that a non moderated list was a challenge and that we need solutions, at least for Thomas not to be legally responsible for what is said on the list. IMHO however SS and his committee took it the wrong way (at least for an European mind). He started the job to solve an immediate no problem, but he did not identified the problem first, nor the target.

What I name Sotiris' "no problem" was to contest the elections, and he chose very early to contest others (started with Bruce). Were they nominated? Are they real? Now is preceived as a witch hunt. This may help correctng it and getting at the end of the day what we should have started with: a charter, an elected membership, a chair, and a true serious verification of their own members.

I was reasonably satisfied of the realness of quite every candidate (I must say I known who suggested them) and I feel the committee is amateurish because it did not addressed any of my concerns (it has actually added some). One has to understand that only real people do not have their mind or their personnal organization set to accept or stand verification, while a professional clone will be ready. This is why I am (and I discussed the point with Police professionnals as all of you may do) far more impressed by a rebuke than by a response. To understand that let imagine you forgot your driving license home: will you rush on the road? Be sure that if you are a fake, you will be in order.

When you run a check, perfection is a minus. Everyone is tired at times, everyone makes mistakes, everyone is wrong at reading, everyone is influenced by elements other ignores. Not fakes or if they fake it they are not consistent: this why cops do like Danny does, they provoque responses on normal issues and then check their consistency over time or complexity. This is the starting of the "noometry" science. One can define methods to say this brain is not the same as this one, with the result that one can say this today brain is not the same as this yesterday brain.

Also, if you do not want to carry Drum Justice, you need to have a clear mandate. Let suppose - this is just for the example - that Sotiris is Jeff Williams and me. So he was self nominated. Would that mean that Jeff Williams could not seat on the Panel? I do not think so: he received the members support.

History shown in many many cases that being elected is a way out of jail. Only the supported person can invalidate an election, or democracy would not exist. How can he invalidate it: it two ways, in cheating and in refusing the result. How could any committee could decide that Sotiris was not elected _because_ voters liked him to be able to inpersonate Jeff and me so well, and they wanted the three of us to seat on the Panel? I am fully supporting the idea of a committee verifying the election, ie making sure candidates did not cheat (UN tries to do that all over the world). But one cheats a rule. The rule of reference must obviously be the rule of the election. When the target is clearly to cheat the election in fighting its rule then the Committee has not verified itself.
jfc









































Sotiris, your committee will be perceived as a witch hunt committee as long as you start with hunting



























A troll should be ignorable, not be given the means to force his victims to respond all the time.


 Generally attacking people
backfires on the person doing the attacking which is a strong
incentive against.
True. But we have seen people who did not mind committing political suicide, who professed that "they were willing to jump off a cliff, as long as they could nn with them." (Thornton)

>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.
What I propose is close to the GA rules, but with the extra to combat malicious libel.
Can you not live with that?

-joop-


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





---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 19/05/03

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