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