[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules
Kent,
My opinion is that Michael raises a matter of principle.
The question basically is:
"Is the GA-list now 'monitored' or is the GA-list unmonitored, and the
'monitored' list provided as an additional service?'
To correctly answer this question, the details underlined by Michael are
important.
The answer is:
"The GA-list is now 'monitored', and the 'unmonitored' list is provided
as an additional service, with added value vs. the past of allowing
posting from non-members (therefore, more open than before), and
including also posts otherwise rejected (with the exception of what may
happen for strictly technical reasons)"
Personally, I have also problems with this approach, but I feel I have
to choose between the "perfect" theoretical solutionm and an acceptable
"least evil" that will guarantee better participation.
In a perfect world, we should be able to deal with what you call "people
who aspire to be disruptive assholes" without the need to invest
resources for monitoring. But I just have to acknowledge that this world
is not perfect.
Note that, IMHO, in a perfect world, you would need no laws, because
people would act nicely independently from the fear of sanctions, which
are in itself a thing that makes this world "imperfect".
Regards
Roberto
>On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School of Law wrote:
>>
>> As you well know, the issue is not posting rights, it what feed
people
>> get as a matter of default. Arranging posting addresses is a trivial
>> computing matter.
>
>Sorry -- I misunderstood your point. I understand now -- you want it
to
>be the case that people who aspire to be disruptive assholes don't have
>to do anything, but that those who prefer politeness and decorum must
do
>something special. Is that correct?
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
>