virus: Debate and Discipline

Debate: I have read along here, and I think it would be a bit onerous to insist that everyone adhere strictly to Robert's Rules in this environment.  I would recommend that everyone take a browse through them, and get a feeling for the spirit of it.  I think Robert's Rules can serve as some persuasive authority  on how to deal with particular issues.  But keep in mind that the Rules were formulated in a different era before anyone could imagine an online forum, and that they were formulated for rule-making/voting in addition to debating.  For the purposes of a simple online debate, they are probably a bit overly-elaborate and time consuming.  While the Rules may provide a good guide for the spirit we wish to achieve, I think a moderator(s) with a good intuition of what makes for balanced and reasonable discussion is much more important than simply having someone who has committed Robert's Rules to memory. 

 

Discipline:  I think the focus of concern should remain more on the manner of interaction rather than the content of someone's opinion.  To take Joe as an example, the problem wasn't so much his opinion, but the fact that he chose the spammers' strategy in making his case.  Joe would probably disagree and say that we picked on him simply for disagreeing with him, but this simply isn't the case as others who have shared his wardog opinions (Jonathan Davis, and Bill Roh for example), have made their points without causing the same problems that he did. 

 

I wouldn't say that we should never sanction someone for their opinion.  I can imagine extreme examples, for example someone who believes in genocidal extermination of blacks, Jews, Muslims, or other major demographic groups, where we should act pro-actively to inform the world at large that we do not support such positions.  In such cases we can minimally adopt a statement condemning the particular PoV, without denying that person access to CoV forums to discuss that PoV.  After all sometimes it helps to remind ourselves how irrational a position is by being able to watch or engage other people espouse or defend such irrationality.  However, if the individual's conduct begins to resemble Joe's example, then I think moving towards a silencing or a ban would be appropriate.

 

Finally, some may find it disturbing that we would even have a policy of disownment, etc.  I agree that the prospect does not make me comfortable, however I would assert ALL groups of similar minded individuals have a policies to sanction, remove, or otherwise control their membership and their message.  Some people may believe that they belong to groups where such things are unnecessary, but I think that they are generally deluded by some level of well-functioning that they have currently achieved or maintained.  I would assure them that no matter how wonderful, tolerant, and open they believe their group to be, that they will discover that they DO indeed have such boundaries however implicit once someone behaving like Joe Dees shows up at their party, and that it is only a matter of time if the group survives long enough that such a thing will eventually happen.

 

I just wanted to share this since I probably won't be able to make the Tuesday chat.

 

-Jake

 

--- Jake Sapiens

--- every1hz@earthlink.net

--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.