From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 10:38:48 MDT
[Jonathan 2] Part of my problem with all this talk of 'discipline' - pace your assurances - is that I am worried it is a tool for manipulation that may be used in bad faith (abused).
[Hermit 3] If you are saying that the most reputed member of the CoV will abuse these processes, do you not anticipate that the membership will quickly rectify this by choosing a new set of reputable members to replace the disreputable?
[Hermit 3] If you are saying that this will not happen, you are basically suggesting that a substantial proportion of the membership is interested in operating in bad faith, and I really wonder what a nice person like you is doing in such evil company.
[Hermit 3] Or perhaps you are confused about your position. I'm sure you wouldn't be offering a slippery slope argument. Or would you?
[Jonathan 2] These measures were introduced for mutual convenience to countervail the problems of abuse and flooding but like so much legislation, they run the risk of being co-opted for ends other than those agreed upon (like censorship or revenge).
[Hermit 3] Not at all. These rules and their "logical prequels" have been recognised as necessary, researched and under discussion since 1999. But not until David Lucifer invented and established Meridion did we have a mechanism to put them into place. Granted that until the last batch of serious trauma there was no urgency, but they were not primarily motivated by the problems of abuse and flooding, but to make the CoV a more pleasant and attractive environment. See our "Goals" (http://virus.lucifer.com/about.html) to comprehend why.
[Jonathan 2] For now the only thing I am personally comfortable with is Lucifer's arbitration.
[Hermit 3] And perhaps if there had been a little consideration for him, and the stress caused by a lot of clowns ripping up on each other "for fun" or otherwise, with DavidLucifer absolutely loathing unpleasantness, and undignified behaviour, coupled with watching people leave the community each time it happens, then we wouldn't have spent 5 years of our lives trying to find answers to the problem. I think that the reputation system, coupled wth the evolving rules stands a better chance of working than anything else we've tried. Give it a chance. You might like it. If it doesn't work, we will continue evolving until either we find a solution or the forum is dead.
[Jonathan 2] Whilst the procedure has vague terms making it subject to whimsical interpretations, it ought to be suspended.
[Hermit 3] This might be needed eventually if you imagine that those selected by the community as being the most concerned about the future of the CoV - including, I notice, DavidLucifer, are likely to engage in "whimsical interpretations." Is this what you think? If not, could it be a straw man?
[Jonathan 2] I would like to note however that I am in full agreement with you on the broad aims of this exercise and convey my thanks to you personally for the effort you have put in to authoring these processes and trying to tackle these difficult problems.
[Hermit 3] Jolly square of you old boy.
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29437> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 10:41:08 MDT