RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org 
|>On Behalf Of Joop Teernstra
|>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 4:01 PM
|>Subject: RE: Re[3]: [ga] Reform in the GA?
|>
|>
|>At 10:48 10/02/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:
|>
|>>Mistakes made on one forum and repeated elsewhere are relevant to all.
|>
|>Possibly. There are a number of lessons to be learnt from the IDNO
|>experiment in open democracy and I am certainly one who is learning them.
|>
|>One is that constant personal abuse drives all serious participants off and
|>leaves only those who, in the words of Alan McCluskey

Since you raise the issue of personal abuse within the context associated with the IDNO, I will point out that I have been on the receiving end of such abuse by the people supposed to maintain order within the IDNO.  References to the relevent archive posts can and may be be provided to anyone interested.  Personally, I have attacked the ignoring of process and the failure to perform in accordance with Charter directives.  I rarely stoop to personal attacks, although being human, sometimes fail the high ideals I strive for.

|>quote
|>>what I then called "verbal terrorists" - those whose drive 
|>to be heard is so strong that it drowns out any consideration they might 
|>have for the common good and can sicken even the strongest democratic process.
|>unquote

Interesting quote, I fail to see how it applies to myself being referred to as a "verbal terrrorist" by yourself in the IDNO.  I have not posted excessively regarding my personal opinions, if any one cares to look over the archives they will see that the majority of my posts involve pointing out process and procedural points.

|>It is vital for the GA, especially if a bigger role is contemplated, not to fall into this trap.
|>It means list- moderation that is both effective and just.
|>Not a trivial task.

I'm not sure I agree with list moderation, but I certainly agree that good strong list rules are important.  These have to objective in nature and easy to interpret.  There should not be any room for critism or disapproval.  As in the recent complaints about personal abuse highlight.  It can be very difficult if subjectivity is necessary to evaluate the validity of any complaints.  The list rules should spell out exactly what is considered abuse.  Calling someone a liar may be unacceptable, pointing out they are mistaken in their views, whilst some may take it as an accusation of being a liar is not in fact abuse, it is a part of the normal process during a discussion to reach agreement, even if the agreement is to disagree.  

List moderation should only be considered if the list is totally out of control.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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