[ga-rules] A Fairer Set of Rules, Anyone?

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Jeff

> Rule #1.  There are no list rules, their are guidelines.
> Rule #2 Banning from the list is prohibited unless it is SPAM.
> Rule #3.  All guidelines are no mandatory but are highly recommended.
> Rule #4. Filtering will not be done by the list admin. but is a suggested
>               approach to those that wish not to read some list
subscribers
>                posts.

That's not four rules but one only.

If Rule #1 applies (no rules) then there can't be any banning under Rule #2.
Rule #3 says the same thing as Rule #1 but in different words.
And your last rule, Rule #4 is a consequence of Rule #1 (no rules).

So you rules boil down to no rules.  All in favour of no rules say "Aye".

> > Meanwhile the remaining List Monitors will enforce what we have.
> > To the best of their ability.
>
>   Ok as long as you understand that that at best is arbitrary and
> illegitimate...

Says who?

> > Meanwhile, I suggest that with three monitors we go for a majority vote.
> > Two out of three gets a person suspended.  Comments anyone?
>
> Nope. If there are only three it should be unanimous or the list
> participants to be fair.  Or the list participants must vote to determine
> by majority vote on any action taken.

Why should THREE people be fair and TWO people not fair?  That means that
FOUR people will be fairer.  And FIVE fairer still.  Why not everybody on
the GA?

That's the fairest solution of them all.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss




--
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