[ga-rules] Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

I agree with Alexander that these specific examples cross the line. Equally,
I understand that Eric likes to push boundaries to the limits, which is not
a bad quality in a person. If rules are broken, there are consequences and
Eric must take responsibility for that behaviour. There is nothing personal
about the list monitor's decision so far as I know.

While he is suspended, (or until the decision is reversed, whichever is the
sooner), may I suggest that Eric sends his comments to the list via another
member, who would then take responsibility for the decorum of the post. I
would happily do that, and stand by what is posted in terms of compliance
with the rules.

Regards,
Joanna

on 6/19/01 6:18 PM, Alexander Svensson at alexander@svensson.de wrote:

> 
> Dear GA members,
> 
> the purpose of the list rules is to enable focused debate to
> take place; if a list monitors decision captures much of the
> attention, it's not a good sign. As I have received several
> questions about the list monitor decision process, I would
> like to answer them, but this will be my last contribution
> about this case. (This is my personal posting, and not in the
> name of the list monitors.)
> 
> We receive complaints about certain posts, and we only decide
> upon posts about which we receive complaints. Peter de Blanc
> states that there are "other postings by other people which
> did NOT result in suspensions" to which he apparently objects
> more than to Eric's, and I agree. But again: We stick to posts
> about which we receive complaints; we cannot both complain
> and judge. If you feel that postings by other people violate
> the list rules and should result in suspensions, complain
> about them.
> 
> If you subscribe to GA with rules (instead of subscribing to
> GA-full, with or without a personal e-mail filter), you agree
> to the list rules. So far, most of those who have commented
> on the topic have argued that the list monitors have
> misapplied the rules, not that the list rules itself should
> be scrapped. Strangely enough, I find this encouraging.
> 
> As to the postings themselves, I think that we should probably
> have made it clear to which portions of the postings the
> list monitors objected, in order to avoid the numerous
> "I couldn't find anything" replies (and I fully accept the
> blame for this). But I stand by the judgement that the
> language of the posts is insulting and offensive ("go stuff
> it", "you bad ass intellectuals", "you are pissing me and
> my dot commoner friends off"). Deciding on what level of
> personal attack is over the limit and which isn't is
> particularly hard. But I also stand by the judgement that
> the attacks on Kent ("go stuff it") and Patrick ("lied
> about his intentions and is glorified") clearly cross that
> line. This is the kind of explanation which in my personal
> opinion should probably have been included in the list
> monitors message; as said, I take the blame for this.
> 
> The concerns have been voiced; I have at least tried to
> submit the missing bits of information; it is now up to Eric
> if he wants to ask the Chair to overturn the suspension
> (which has been done before). If there is still further
> need for discussion, it might be better to move it to
> GA-rules (or, if you like, drop me a private mail), so
> that work on the GA list can go on.
> 
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html