[ga-full] Re: [ga] List Rule(s) Proposal: Disorderly Words

[Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>]

Harald,

You should use this instead. Rationale below.

'Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, or by
the moderator, and then presented to the member. If he denies them, the
assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a member
cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologise for them, it
is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the disorderly words are of
a personal nature, parties to the personality should withdraw from the debate.
The costs of justification are to the member called into question.'

Think the proposal beneath my emendation leads to unclarity, as evidenced by
Harald's paralysis before the JW question.

1. Privileged speech

What is required is a protected domain of discourse where list members
explicitly waive potential liability for civil suit against participation in a
rule-driven space in which the topics delineated by the list articles can be
discussed without sanction other than by those same rules. I.e. an explicit
acknowledgment of the equivalent of parliamentary privilege

This isn't so different, but with the following provisos and/or clarifications:

2. Replace implicit rule-making with explicit rule-making

- The days when implicit 'club' style rule making by exception was appropriate
have been replaced by the (tedious) need to have explicit inclusive rules. This
is to ensure that the definition of what makes one 'uncomfortable' (cf:below)
is clear.  What makes one uncomfortable in Dallas doesn't make one comfortable
in Darwin, and vice versa. There need to be limitations on the US concept of
free speech in the international domain, a countervailing personal right not to
be abused. A good principle is the one that if you wouldn't like it done to
yourself, don't do it to others. The category of 'Disorderly Words' found in
parliamentary procedure rulebooks more than adequately covers the cases in
question, particularly Dave Crocker's 'ad hominem' attack. The educated
moderator should note the use of the threat of the misuse of rules as an attack
in itself, of course.

3. Require legal matters to be dealt with by legal means

- Don't see the need for three moderators, although have no objection, believe
appeal against sanction should be to the list members. (or a committee of
members) The confusion of having legal offences cited as reasons for list
expulsion should be avoided. If it is a legal offence, then legal remedy is
available. It is not the list moderator's job to enforce law. As such the
offence needs to be very clearly defined. Concepts such as slander are vague
and intersect uncomfortably with their legal equivalent.  We are talking about
words, not actions. Where relevant expressions of opinion (DNSO suffers from
paralysis) shade into subtle spin ( Most of the actors in the ICANN structure
have been captured) shade into personal attack (JW is a subtle confabulation
designed to irritate, stimulate and force thought) is unclear, and probably a
technical audience in Eastern Switzerland (the largest hemp-growing area in
Europe) would find a different answer to the question of acceptability than
Virginia lawyers or East Sussex farmers.

4. Propose the relevant sections of Robert's Rules on 'Disorderly Words' as
appropriately adapted for a list cf:

'Disorderly words should be taken down by the member who objects to them, or by
the moderator, and then presented to the member. If he denies them, the
assembly shall decide by a vote whether they are his words or not. If a member
cannot justify the words he used, and will not suitably apologise for them, it
is the duty of the assembly to act in the case. If the disorderly words are of
a personal nature, parties to the personality should withdraw from the debate.
The costs of justification are to the member called into question.'

This has the added advantage of protecting the moderator, who is restored to a
facilitative capacity and is not called upon to exercise legal judgement.

MM




> At 12:55 PM 6/6/00 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote

> >Propose text. I happen to think that the current text works.
> >
> >NOTE: The chairs intend to hold a vote on the list rules as soon as we
> >have a set of voting rules that we can conduct the vote according to. At
> >that time, alternate proposals are in order.
>
> I propose the following tried and tested text be adopted in general in DNSO
> mailing lists:
>
> <start list rules>
> Each mailing list will have exactly three people whose role is to maintain
> civility, order and generally keep the discussion on topic. For any action
> to be taken, all three must agree. These "guardians" act like moderators,
> but the lists are distinctly not moderated in the usual and formal sense of
> the word as it applied to mailing lists. The term moderator will be used
> here but please understand what is trying to be achieved is somewhere
> between the rigid constraints of a moderated mailing list and an complete
> anarchy that sometimes happens with unmoderated mailing lists.
>
> 1. The mailing list will be a place where all discourse is civil and
> polite. No personal attacks or slander, no negative sarcastic or facetious
> remarks. No name-calling. We're not a completely humorless bunch here, but
> simple etiquette is expected. Emily Post defines etiquette this way: "If
> what you say or do makes somebody uncomfortable, that is a breach of
> etiquette".
>
> 2. The final arbiter of the definition of "civil and polite" will be the
> list moderators. The list moderators are [guardian 1 <email@dnso.org>],
> [guardian 3 <email@dnso.org>] and [guardian 3 <email@dnso.org>].
>
> 3. Complaints may be sent to any of the addresses above, either by the
> person offended or by any other member of the list. They should not be sent
> to the list as well.
>
> 4. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the offender will be invited to submit
> to the group, and to the person offended, an on-line apology which has been
> accepted by the latter.
>
> 5. Beginning with the third warning, the moderators shall have the
> authority to remove the offenders ability to post to the mailing list.
>
> 6. The mailing list will be otherwise open and unfiltered by the mail
> distribution server.
>
> 7. All discussion about the moderator's performance is explicitly
> permitted, but must take place in messages that deal ONLY with the
> moderator's performance, and not with any of the other topics of discussion
> on the mailing list.
> </end list rules>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon Higgs
>
> --
> It's a feature not a bug...
>
> --
> 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

--
begin:vcard 
n:Measday;Mark
tel;cell:0044370947420
tel;fax:0033450209492
tel;home:00441273474894
tel;work:0033450209492
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.josmarian.ch
org:Josmarian SA
version:2.1
email;internet:measday@josmarian.ch
title:Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;pa Reich & Zen-Ruffinen=0D=0A72 bd St Georges=0D=0A=0D=0A;Geneva;;CH-1205;Switzerland
note;quoted-printable:Josmarian is a swiss virtual rights consultancy company specialising =0D=0Ain advice to international companies and  institutions on appropriate legal and technical =0D=0Astrategies to transition from bilateral or multilateral internationalist to thinking globalist. 
fn:Mark Measday
end:vcard