From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 08:23:12 MST
Dylan wrote to much, to little and plain wrong.
I won't write a point by point rebuttal, as that would be really long. I'll
try to keep this short. We are not a debating society, we are a church. We
are not a democracy (although we sometimes obtain the opinion of the
congregation prior to making decisions) but any action taken is for what is
perceived as the long-term benefit of the church - amongst other things,
that means in the best interest of the congregation.
People subscribe to the CoV because they share our aims [See
http://virus.lucifer.com) or wish to find out about them, and are prepared
to engage in atheist, rational discussion. Because of this, so long as we
stay engaged in rational discussion and steer clear of religious
apologetics, pretty much anything goes.
Worth emphasizing that we are not a debating society, if we were there would
be a moderator and strict limits on what can be said (see Robert's Rules of
Order), and this might reduce the invective. Some reasons we are not a
debating society is that debate has seldom convinced anyone of anything,
there are many debating lists, the rules of debate would preclude the vast
free ranging discussions we have and the question of who the moderator (who
can't engage in the discussions) would have to be dealt with. Besides, being
a moderator is hard work, and when posts don't get out because the moderator
is busy and falls behind, the wheels fall off.
What is a boot? I only see three kinds of booting:
Order of the boot with Cluster) A simple ban, restricted to use against
spammers, flooders, people attempting server hacks, deliberate viral
propagation and denial of service attacks.
Order of the Boot Second Class) A selective ban on a topic, which would
imply that mail about certain topics would be directed to a separate list.
Order of the Boot First Class) A revocation of the privilege (and it is a
privilege not a right) of transmitting to the list - although mail to the
list would be routed elsewhere so that people who wished to read it could.
In all but the "Order of the boot with Cluster", the "bannee" would still
receive mail from the list.
So if we are not debating and there is no moderator, and anything - within
the established boundaries goes, what is not acceptable? Well, as already
said, religious apologetics are always out of order - as is spam. From time
to time we may declare other subjects off topic and they too would be out of
order. The CoV is a pulpit that the congregation has created and contributed
to. We have no obligation to allow others to make use of our pulpit to
distribute memes which are inimical to our aims. So somebody who
persistently refuses to agree to play by these rules may receive one of the
orders of the boot. Who else. Somebody that refused to engage in rational
discourse perhaps. Rational discourse means (among other things) that you
can substantiate and are prepared to defend your assertions (and during the
alluded flamefest with Joe Dees, both of you attempted to do so). Would we
boot somebody who refused to do this? Perhaps, if it prevents the list from
being used as intended, if they flooded the list, or if they persistently
refused to change their behavior when asked. Sure. Why not? Under what other
conditions might we boot people? We'll only know when a situation arises
that might require it. Who might we boot? Anyone. There would be a tendency
to not kick those who consistently contribute to the Church, or have
contributed to building the Church, but it would only be a tendency, not a
rule. When might we boot? If the congregation or the servers came under
computer attack, immediately. In most other circumstances we would discuss
it, attempt to change the attitude or style of the problem member, maybe
take a vote on it, and only then apply an appropriate remedy. Who decides
about these remedies? The list owner. When does it happen? As seldom as
possible. The intent is to grow the church, not shrink it.
Being free speech (and that means completely free expression) we don't like
the boot in any shape form or size. So we prefer to depend on peer
moderation. This might include, discussion, debate, rational argument,
invective, peer pressure, on and off-list requests, and ignoring. It is only
when peer moderation fails, and the congregation's ability to function
effectively is threatened that booting might be necessary. And then only to
protect the purpose of the Church.
Has Yash reached this point yet? I think so. As many of you know, I didn't
think so when I established the poll - and still didn't think so yesterday
morning, despite the fact that he has flooded the mail-list (but not too
severely at this stage), and apparently can't or won't discuss, debate,
engage in rational argument, and seemingly ignores peer pressure, arguments,
invective and requests, he was, until yesterday, a borderline case. So what
changed my mind?
We were seeing what the effect of ignoring him would have (a down side of
"ignoring" is that it only works effectively when nobody responds). As we
saw yesterday, this lead to Yash, ever more desperately seeking attention,
but not enjoying the attention he has received, to irrationally attempt to
escalate the situation in order to obtain a response, by copying yesterday's
letter to the US Military. And, no matter how little effect it will have,
yesterday's letter by Yash was a deliberate attempt on his part to seek real
world harm for another member of this congregation. Something that nobody on
this list has to to anyone else before. Which, to my perspective, clearly
puts Yash outside of the congregation and quite beyond the pale.
The question to my mind is "Why is he still here?" Assuming that he meant
what he said about leaving, I look forward to seeing the corncob, placed
there at his invitation, sticking out of his rear as he leaves. If he does
not, I propose that we repoll the list to see if others agree with my
perspective.
Regards
Hermit
PS The US Constitution only regulates government activities. There is no
requirement for anyone to provide a podium on their property for anybody
else. While I sympathize with Jane White, this story applies:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002027475,00.html
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT