RE: flame wars

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 00:16:57 MDT

  • Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: A vision"

    Lee Corbin wrote,
    > But anyway, why isn't all that behind us?

    You tell me.

    > Well, this is a new definition of "free speech" to me. I
    > will have to think about it. I certainly cannot think of any
    > historical parallels now. Besides, to define a freedom in
    > terms of how people *feel* sounds quite peculiar.

    I was not redefining "free speech". I was talking about people not
    exercising their free speech on this list.

    > I will maintain that speech is free when people are permitted
    > to say anything that they want. Of course, this implies that
    > on no moderated list is speech *completely* free, but a
    > practical first approximation is that one is free to say
    > anything whatsoever provided that one is not excessively
    > engaging in personal attacks.

    This is my primary goal for this list. But why the qualifier "excessively"?
    Why can't we avoid personal attacks altogether?

    > Could you tell me who is afraid to speak publicly for fear of
    > personal attacks or other criticism? (It's not that I expect
    > you here to betray confidences---perhaps some of these
    > worthies have written some posts, either by name or anonymously?)

    As you already guessed, no I won't give you a list of names of people who
    are afraid of being singled out for attack. That would be counterproductive
    in so many ways. But why do you want this list?

    > Why do you think that the usual list moderators
    > are not up to dealing with the problems that do occasionally arise?

    Because they refuse to enforce the rules when they are broken. They require
    the victim of an attack to go through official channels to report it.
    Complaints on the list are ignored. The initial ad hominem or insults are
    ignored. The flame wars are allowed to escalate until the whole list seems
    consumed. And when someone finally complains, they are attacked even
    further for being a complainer or for only complaining about one side of the
    flame-war. I think it would be much better to enforce the rules all the
    time for everyone. Enforcing rules sporadically, selectively, or only
    one-sidedly (if only one side complains) is worse than not enforcing the
    rules at all. This is the system endorsed by ExI and its current and former
    moderators. It is a system I have always insisted doesn't work. Flame wars
    need to be nipped in the bud, not addressed after they are over and only
    sometimes.

    -- 
    Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
    Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec
    Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
    <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 00:26:14 MDT