Re: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Chair:

I use this heavily snipped message of Mr. Corliss to try to convince you to take
action before it is to late. This is the alt-chair writing this post and after
taking away the several pages of him defending himself it is clear that our own
alt-chair does not even have a handle on the concepts of rule of order. Within the
same message he contradicts himself as to material rules/policies/practices and
custom.

You must immediately if not sooner establish rules which must be followed and
followed by the letter not by subjective and biased determinations of individuals. A
monarchy is a rule of man and what we need is not another king but a rule of law.
This last problem was so transparently a fight between Corliss and Walsh and Corliss
winning because he has position that it is shocking.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I would advise that there

> has never been any intention to enforce the daily limit blindly.  The intention
> of the restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on the list.
>
> Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and posts six or even seven,
> emails, I would personally not consider this of utmost gravity.  But what we are
> talking about here, as far as I can see, is a systematic and deliberate breach
> of list protocols.  This is exactly the problem, and the harm, that the posting
> rules were introduced to combat in the first place.  It is not a minor matter.
>

The above shows a complete lack of knowledge of the differences between rules,
suggestions, custom and practice not to mention intention and motivation.

>
> There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and other lists.  My feeling is
> that we have constructive work to do and even your post is not assisting that
> task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week working on list research
> and debate.
>
> To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or two, here or there, I am
> talking about sustained effort for days and days.  With very little to show for
> it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a wasted effort unless we have
> your support.
>

The above illustrates the labor intensity required when making up and justifying
rules on the fly. It also shows the extent to which men will go to prove themselves
right instead of enforcing a rule.

>
> As I have been named (and now warned) I have checked my posts for the days in
> question.  This is not a trivial task because I am in Australia and perhaps 19
> hours difference in time from the West Coast of the States.  The details are
> below for ease of checking by anyone on the list who feels they need to do that.
>

> However, I am now left with 10 postings on 17 April  2001.  This was, of course,
> the day that I tried to bring the list to order in my official capacity as
> Co-Chair.
>
> By my count, five of these namely (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) were clearly
> official
> And without checking, I think you'll find that I signed them as such.
>
> So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 17 April also.
>
> It is clear that I have taken great care to maintain my posting rate at exactly
> the five posts per day limit.  The fact that I reminded other people about the
> limit shows the genuine nature of my compliance.  I ask the the Chair to lift
> the warning
>
> You noted that Christopher Ambler breached the posting limit on 12, 14, 15
> April.  You will also recall that much of this was a debate with Mr Walsh.  I
> leave each of you to make your own judgment on its merits.  Mr Ambler is not now
> subscribed.
>
> However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting that I posted the onlist
> reminder of the posting limts on 16 April, my local time.  I also intervened the
> next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that officials are entitled to
> expect some co-operation and goodwill from those who only so recently elected
> them.
>
> Many reference have been made to the posting limit and it was clearly adopted by
> the present administration by my posting addressed to Mr Ambler and Mr Walsh.
>

This has got to take the cake, if it is the poster's local time which determines the
24 hour period then why did Mr. Corliss have a hard time here? Doesn't he have a
sent file that can list time and dates for himself? If it is a list 24 hour then
what?
We are talking freedom of speech here in a supposedly bottom up method.  Top dogs
don't just make rules by posting something in a bottom up method. Since when does a
Chair and alt-chair become an administration.

It is irresponsible alt-chair posting like this that then gets later cited by some
records genius as establishing a rule.

>
> From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> To: Christopher Ambler <cambler-dompol@iodesign.com>; William X. Walsh
> <william@userfriendly.com>
> Cc: [GA] <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
> Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings
>
> > Hi Everybody
> >
> > I can see this particular issue taking quite a few more postings to resolve.
> > For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all try to keep to our five
> > postings per day limit.
> >
> > Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> Monitor.
>
> In case it is not still not clear, I again remind everybody of this list that
> there is a limit of five postings per day.  This is calculated on the basis of
> the posting party's own local time ending at midnight.  The List Monitors are
> given the discretion to allow minor and occasional breaches in circumstances of
> genuine attempts to comply.
>
> List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this ruling is designed to
> address when applying their discretion towards postings over the daily limit.
>
> Note:    Although this posting contains an official reminder I must include it
> in my daily posting count.  Supporting documentation about my postings follows:
>

This last is so blatant as almost all of the snipped portions of this post are in
defense of the writer's own wrongful postings.

This has got to stop!  Mr. Younger you must establish written rules that are posted
that we can read and abide by or suffer consequences when violated.  They must be
put in place and then argued over and modified based upon written procedure for such
matters.

We must have firm voting rules.
We must have firm list decorum rules.
We must have firm modification of above rules.
There must be restrictions placed upon the obscene use of position that Mr. Corliss
is trying to manipulate.

Oh and hand picking the monitors - no, no, no, no, no!

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker

--
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