From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 00:33:27 MDT
You know, all of that sounds fine in theory. However, it has been my repeated
experience that some persons on this list do broadly negatively characterize
those they disagree with in the manner of a personal attack and do so
repeatedly. Each time it has occurred I rarely see any apparent action from
any moderator[s] in place. Instead I once in a great while see a message
much like your own that in part says to let bygones be bygones without
addressing the existing problem directly (as far as I get to see anyhow).
This seems to me not exactly just or leading to a reasonably civilized
e-environment. Also, it should, in my opinion, be the right of anyone who
is personally attacked to at least say publicly, "hey, that is a personal
attack!" if they feel so inclined. Otherwise the attackers get to make
public smears that are only addressed and cleaned up, if at all, in private.
- samantha
On Friday 20 June 2003 10:32, Hal Finney wrote:
> I have received some private email asking questions about my plans for
> moderation. Here are a few brief comments.
>
> First, I want to emphasize that this is a temporary role. The time frame
> discussed was about a week. I am realistic enough to understand that it
> may extend somewhat beyond that time, but I have no intention of becoming
> a long-term moderator.
>
> Second, I also do not intend to deal with old issues. I will try to
> address new issues going forward, but I won't deal with old baggage.
> That would be taking on an open-ended responsibility. I realize that
> many people feel that they have been wronged and still carry grudges
> or feelings of resentment. I'm sorry, but all I can suggest is that we
> try to put these issues behind us and move on.
>
> Third, I only intend to enforce the list rules, which I have appended
> below. The main issue recently is personal attacks, dealing with
> the character of the poster rather than the arguments he offers.
> I realize that this is a gray area and that it is difficult to stay
> on the right side of this line. Nevertheless I would ask that list
> members redouble their efforts to follow this rule. Address arguments.
> Avoid characterizing people.
>
> A question has arisen about how list members should respond to problems:
> "If someone attacks your character, insults you, or otherwise violates the
> above rule, do NOT retaliate in like manner. Instead, send us a complaint
> (to info@extropy.org) and take the matter off-list." I suggest also
> copying my personal email address, hal@finney.org, since I'm not sure
> that info@extropy.org is being forwarded to me.
>
> My reading of this is that you should complain if you, personally,
> were attacked. Don't complain on behalf of other people. As far as
> replying to attacking messages, the rules only say not to "retaliate".
> But keep in mind that if the message attacked you personally, it will be
> very difficult for you to respond in an objective manner. Experience
> shows that once a thread becomes personal, it usually only gets worse.
> In those cases it is best to register a complaint as described in the
> rules and not to respond on the list.
>
> Last, if you do get a warning from me off-list, try to look at it
> constructively. My intention is to encourage vigorous and honest debate.
> The best way to do that with controversial topics is to keep things
> objective and impersonal. If we can learn to argue in this way then
> the quality of the list dialog will improve.
>
> Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 00:42:21 MDT