[ga] List decorum

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Harald and Roberto for 
giving them such an unpleasant task at the end of their tenure.

Second of all I would like to apologize to the list for my lapse in 
professional decorum.

In my own opinion, my attempt at humor was frankly less bothersome than the 
overall tone of the note it was in.  (I was, and continue to be, amused by 
the pronunciation "pun".  But this underscores the dangers of indulging in 
humor in a public forum.)

That tone was to attack the person and that tone was definitely in my 
heart.  It does not matter whether I might or might not think that they 
"deserved" that tone.  It does not even matter whether my tone and comments 
might or might not be accurate, according to some sort of objective measure.

That tone is simply not acceptable in public forums, even in response to 
someone else's personal attacks.  Not from me, and not from anyone else.

And that, I believe, underscores a very real and very deep problem on this 
list:  People believe it is acceptable to make personal attacks, directly 
or by implication.  Note that the thread discussing my suspension contained 
four or five vicious ad hominem comments about me or Kent.

Very much contrary to Roberto, I believe that it is almost always 
unacceptable -- in fact, entirely offensive -- to focus on the person 
rather than their content.  (There is a difference between citing a 
person's comments, versus focusing on them personally.)

What is most bothersome is Roberto's assessment that direct slander does 
not cross the line of acceptability.  The reason it is bothersome is not 
merely that it is so very wrong but that it is widely held on this list.

I used the word slander quite carefully.  The statement Roberto was 
commenting on was both false and malicious.  Yet folks on this list are 
quite casual about tossing such comments around.

(Lest one claim that I am attacking Roberto, let me be clear that I am 
not.  I am attacking a problem in allowing ANY focus on people as 
legitimate content.  The example I am citing shows just how slippery this 
slope is, not matter how serious and diligent a person might be.)

If the GA list is ever to be productive, it needs to focus on content and 
not on people's affiliations or motives or competence or....  If the devil 
sends a note saying that the sky is blue, should we focus on the fact that 
it is the devil is speaking and even question its veracity?

Focusing on the person is almost always entirely irrelevant to serious 
content.

It does not matter whether the focus is an explicit attack, such as 
impugning their integrity or claiming that a particular affiliation lowers 
their credibility, or whether the focus is implied, such as touting who you 
filter.

Such focus has nothing at all to do with productive work.

So again, I will apologize for my transgression.  It was wrong.  Always 
hoping that something can be learned from errors, I entreat the list to use 
this unfortunate event as a turning point, to resolve to eliminate ad 
hominem content.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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