RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:22 AM
|> To: David Farrar
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass
postings
|>
<SNIP>
|> Whilst you are not asking for these people to be
|> disciplined, this is, in fact,
|> a likely effect of your complaint as you clearly
|> recognise.  A similar effort is
|> required to counter Mr Walsh's argument that there is, or
|> was, no limit in the first place.

Interesting way of putting this.  It would appear to support WX's
contention.  Retrospective application of the rules to justify
applying them to a single participant is a serious abuse of power.

|> 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.

Whilst I agree with the above in principle, it is an attempt to apply
subjective criteria to an objective rule, nor does the rule allow for
this unvested for amendment.  I would suggest that if this is they way
the GA wishes to have the rule applied, the List Rules are amended to
allow this, before actions are initiated involving it.

|> 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.

Flame wars are controlled by appropriate mechanisms.  Under the
decorum rule, List Monitors and Chairs have wide ranging powers, under
the posting limit rule they do not.  I do think that serious
discussion of the current List Rules and their application is always
constructive.  If there is a working group formed to deal with the
issue specifically, so much the better.

|> 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.

Just to make it clear.  I am not attacking you.  I believe you are
operating under the best of intentions.  However, I can not support
the unofficial changing and application of rules.  At a minimum, any
change should be put to a vote on the list before application and not
introduced without due process.

<SNIP>
|> 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.
<SNIP>

Personally I will accept the posting limit is and was in force
although I have doubts of any rule being in force when it isn't
applied.  Cooperation is something we should all try to cultivate,
goodwill is another.  Neither are instantaneous.

<SNIP>
|> 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.
<SNIP>

The above is something I have trouble with.  Discretion was not
written into the rule and in my judgement should not be.  The rule is
objective as it is written and that makes it far easy to administer
and apply.  Once you introduce subjectivity into rules you are more
likely to get complaints and charges of unfair application.  I like to
see rules that are objective and if possible, applied automatically so
as to avoid charges of unfair human intervention.

As others may possibly mention, I like to have rules that are clearly
defined and do not like to see rules being bent or interpreted without
due process.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

PS... I would also suggest that words like request and suggest are not
used when invoking the application of any rules.  Rules are the
enforcement mechanism and should not be treated as suggestions or
requests, nor should they be referenced in such a manner.  When a rule
is invoked it should be done so in a forth right manner and their
should not be any room for confusion or misinterpretation of the
action being invoked.

--
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