On 6 Sep 2002 at 2:12, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Hermit 3] Having read the replies, I don't think this is the case at
> all. But if Joe Dees does think this, and if I am correct about the
> list, then I would appreciate people saying so in no uncertain terms.
> Simply because, it is possible that if others tell Joe Dees that his
> claims are false and his behavior indefensible, he might change his
> behavior.
>
> [Elvensage 4] Change his behavior? Can you elaborate a bit more on
> what you are referring to when you say "his behavior." Being a bit
> more specific could totally change how I respond to that statement.
>
> [Hermit 5] Joe Dees' behaviors, which, in my opinion should, ideally,
> be improved, would include: [*]Stopping flooding. Perhaps by
> consolidating posts (although the posting of URLs is a massive
> improvement on c&p articles). [*]Posting replies to the thread they
> came in, on instead of starting multiple new threads a day on topics
> that have run for months. [*]Starting to "justify" assertions with
> arguments. Gratuitous insults are not arguments. [*]Stop calling
> fellow members names without good reason. Disagreement of
> interpretation is not a good reason. [*]Learning that it is possible
> to disagree without making an interminable issue about it (and that it
> is not always necessary to have the last three dozen words).
> [*]Learning that repetition is not persuasion. [*]Stopping the attempt
> to swamp others with replays of opinions – especially opinion by
> proxy. [*] Learning that when others continue to disagree after Joe
> has pronounced on something, it is not a capital offense.
>
> [Hermit 5] Let me also identify some of what is not included in "his
> behavior": [*]His opinions he is welcome to - and he is entitled to
> discuss them within reason - but that does not mean barraging the list
> with articles about some hobbyhorse and then claiming that this was to
> support something which never materializes or to instigate some
> discussion which is quite clearly not of general interest. [*]His
> critiques may be interesting and a few quotes or articles once in a
> while may be helpful to understand his position. URL’s with a summary
> are preferred [*]Identification of questions about unfounded
> assertions are always welcome. [*]If the advocate of something will
> not or cannot support their position, incisive attacks on their
> assertions or ideas are justified. [*] If ad hominem is resorted to,
> then responding in kind (in the absence of other moderation) is
> acceptable (although instigating it is not).
>
> [Hermit 5] However, while the above would be ideal (and some of which
> is important to me), the important thing is to stop monopolizing the
> list on a single issue with pure cut and pastes not written foir the
> CoV. It should be appreciated that this entire saga is related to the
> request not to post political material to the main list, originally
> made by Lucifer. [quote from: David on 2002-08-21 at 09:17:58]
> Effective immediately all messages with political content should be
> posted to the Serious Business board on the BBS
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7) instead of the
> mailing list. Discussion of this new policy should also go on the BBS,
> in the Suggestion Box board
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7).
>
> David
>
>
> [Hermit 5] While it certainly is possible to simply declare certain
> classes of material off topic – and bounce any mail on that subject -
> which we have had to do before, and may have to do again - I thought
> that my proposal was less intrusive, and is vastly less work - so I
> sought an opinion from the list. Essentially, my various suggestions
> on this topic have boiled down to: [*]Postings written for the CoV are
> always welcome here. [*]Cutting and pasting the works of others to the
> list, particularly repetitive material in bulk, should rather be
> posted in the appropriate places on the BBS and a link (or for
> multiple posts, a consolidated link) be sent to the mail-list, so that
> those disinterested do not have to deal with it. [*]My recommendation
> was that seeing as this was being ignored principally by Joe Dees,
> that we enforce the policy selectively, doing as little active
> moderation as possible (and needed for the reasons shown below).
> [*]Allowing a reasonable level of political comment through, while
> preventing floods of C&P.
>
As long as people post opinions upon these issues with which I have
principled, supportable and substantial disagreements, censorship
should not be applied to prevent me from proffering logical and
evidentiary counterpoints. Otherwise, just call this the 'Hermitish and
those who agree with his politics' list and excise the CoV name entirely.
>
> [Hermit 5] As previously observed, it would seem that the list regards
> implementing a more gentle policy as being equivalent to censorship.
> Which takes us back to the fact that the alternative appears to be
> either a non-selective topic-ban or largely abandoning the growth of
> the church via the mail-list. This is undoubtedly implied by not
> imposing moderation when self-moderation fails, as we see large
> numbers of members leave the mail-list when the volume rises above
> that which people can reasonably handle, or the invective becomes too
> aggressive (and while I have used this tactic myself in the past, I
> now attempt to avoid it simply because of this effect). The same
> happens on any BBS – particularly when visitors arriving there see
> mainly post after post on the same topic for page after page, most
> especially when it is largely C&P made by a single person. At the end
> of the day, these comprise a major part of the issue to which I was
> referring when I discussed “the tragedy of!
> the commons.”
>
Yeah, it becomes a problem when someone *other than yourself* dares
to dominate a discussion, eh?
>
> [Hermit 5] Now, if it isn’t already beaten to death, shall we move
> this particular discussion over to the “Suggestion Box”
> (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7) which is where it
> seems to now more properly belong?
>
> [Hermit 5] Apropos of something else: Joe Dees’ self-valuation* is a
> tad higher than I'd have placed on it. The important point is that the
> CoV is a church. Not a cult. And it is defined by its entire
> congregation.
>
You would do well to take this one personally to heart, after Bill Roh left
and you treated Jonathan Davis as you did.
>
> Individuals - and individual works -are not critical to
> our success, although some members may do more for (or against) the
> church than others and some work may better represent what we would
> like to aspire to (or not) than others). While Joe Dees hasn’t been
> asked to leave (only to behave less aggressively towards the commons
> and other members), there are a lot of good people on this list who
> have written superb material. Joe is one of them, but not the only one
> - by a long shot. Were his older writings to vanish, a few might
> notice (me for one). But not many new people would. And if his newer
> scribblings were to vanish from the archives, I suspect that those
> perusing the archives in the future would be more likely to regard him
> with respect. But that is my opinion. He is welcome to disagree.
>
And I do. History will be my vindication on this issue of contention with
you, as it has been on the issue of Afghanistan.
And I keep checking around for all that other good material, and not
finding much of it. Certainly not from you.
>
> *[quote from: Joe on 2002-09-06 at 00:20:00]
> Towards a Virion Ethics
> Poetry
> Phenomenologies of
> a) extremists
> b) conspiracy theorists
> Various and sundry analyses and commentaries
>
> If I am asked to leave, I ask in return that my many contributions
> also be excised (inluding not only those, but also TOOLS, LANGUAGE AND
> TEXT, THE HUMAN DIALECTIC OF ABSOLUTE PREMISES, THE MEMETIC STANCE, A
> SHORT PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, and THE GATOR FATE), and that I leave
> this list as the cored and impoverished shell that it would
> subsequently be.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26399>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:22 MDT