Kent and all DNSO'ers,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:27:33AM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> > Sanctioning the form of speech (i.e. how people choose to express their
> > points) is a slippery slope with no easy landing.
>
> The "fallacy of the slippery slope": you first assume that there is some
> form of gravity that will cause Harald to inevitably become a dictator;
> you further assume that there are no countervailing forces, in case such
> a gravity were to exist. Both assumptions are simply assumptions.
Yes these are assumptions, true enough. But they seem to be well
based and strongly supported. More on this later in another post
with additional evidence.
>
>
> > It is very difficult to
> > explain why Mr. Williams post required sanction while Mr. Crispin's
> > did not.
>
> It seems pretty clear to me -- I very carefully chose my words, and I
> very carefully avoided any direct insult. However, it's possible that
> Harald might disagree, if someone were to complain, and I might be
> warned, or banished for some period, as a result. In such a case it is
> my own fault for straying too far, and I would live with the
> consequences.
Well I am sure you are safe from the CENSOR, Kent.
>
>
> > I oppose sanctions for either.
>
> Sanctions could be possibly imposed on either. In fact, sanctions
> could reasonably be imposed on *this* message, if it were part of a
> long, tiresome off-topic thread ;-).
Well sure they could. How would such a "Sanction" serve the Assembly
members, despite the size of the post?
>
>
> We put a human in the loop for precisely the same reason that the US
> legal system has judges and juries, even though we in theory are a
> "government of laws, not men".
We are a government of laws AND men. That much is clear.
> There is no mechanical substitute
> available for human judgement; we need humans in such positions; such
> positions are positions that have a lot of responsibility associated
> with them.
Yes we do need judges in legal parlance's. This mailing list is
not a legal arena. But none the less we do need rules and
those that can reasonably impose those rules. But as I and many
have already pointed out those rules must be ones that the
Assembly Members determine, that are well articulated in
verbose detail on most points, EVERYONE is subject to
and independently adjudicated or otherwise enforced.
The current "Rules" Do not meet any of these criteria
at this time. So what you have is a set of edicts.
> I made a judgement concerning how my post fit in the list
> rules; it's possible that my judgement doesn't accord with Harald's. If
> so, I will either campaign to get Harald removed, or moderate my
> behavior. In fact I have a great deal of respect for Harald's fairness,
> so I would do the latter.
>
> To repeat: No set of rules can completely and unambiguously define
> acceptable human behavior in a forum. Human judgement is required.
Agreed and see above as well as archives as to how we do not
have this adequately presently now.
>
> This is always the case -- there is, in fact, no such thing as a totally
> unconstrained forum. Abusive behavior, at some threshold, is *always*
> enjoined.
Maybe enjoined and maybe not. In that Abusive Behavior and
disruptive Behavior is not even briefly defined, we do not have
reasonable rules by which a good judgment can be made.
> At an extreme, you can't shoot your opponents in the debate;
> you can't mailbomb your opponents in the debate, or hack their
> workstation. Human judgement makes those rules, always -- it is simply
> incoherent to say otherwise.
But we are not talking about any of these possibilities, however remote
at this time. So I fail to see how this enhances your argument above or
in general.
> We have established a provisional set of
> rules, and put a human in the loop. The bar now has a "no spitting"
> sign, and a bouncer. [To alter the metaphor only slightly :-)]
Yes, now we have a bouncer that has no constraints or guidelines
of sufficient substance.
>
>
> > Subjective evaluation of style is unnecessary
> > and has a chilling effect.
>
> To the contrary, some subjective evaluation of style is necessary.
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Bob Davis
INEGRoup-West Director
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html