Re: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:19 22/04/01 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

>
>While I agree with *objective* "civil discourse" rules, I find that
>stifiling participation via posting limits is counterproductive to the
>very purpose of discussion lists.
>
Patrick,
I often find myself in agreement with you, but not this time.

If we want *objective* civil discourse rules, we will still find ourselves
working on a 10 page casuistic document for the next 12 months.
Non-lawyers always over-estimate the force of "objective" rules.
Abusers  will still find loopholes to debate. (vide Kent Crispin's
contribution on "what is un-civil?"  on the early idno-discuss list) 

Insults are by definition subjective. Provocative lies can be delivered in
a perfectly civil way, aimed to troll for an angry response or, if that
doesn't work, to  discredit/silence participants.
People need a complaints procedure and explain offlist to a moderator why
they are complaining.
Throwing a disruptive or offensive participant temporarily  out of the
Assembly is a subjective exercise, one for which we should bear collective
responsibility.

OTOH, the 5-posts-a-day rule is eminently suited to force heated dialoges
to a slower pace and preventing such to dominate the bandwidth of us all. 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
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