Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums

From: spamfree@metropolis.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Greg Lindahl:

>It should be no surprise to
>you that other people frame the entire question differently from
>you. Attacking them for that view will get you nowhere.

You're right, it does not surprise me that others frame the question
differently - that's human nature.

What should be remembered is that a speaker raises an issue in a public
forum in the hopes that others may be willing to step forward and discuss
the issue without straying too far from the point.  As far as UseNet goes,
that means that if your "Subject" line reads: "Re: <topic>", then you
*should* actually be discussing the <topic> and not be flying off on a
tangent.

Somewhere along the line, "The nature of the beast" thread took a tangent
along "Galaxy" lines - Tim Booth was kind enough to add "[Galaxy thread]"
to the subject, thereby allowing everyone to know that the conversation
had strayed off-topic.

What I was trying to point out to David (desJardins) and, by example, to
others, was that there appears to be no "Code of Conduct" for this
newsgroup (I believe it was you who said that this newsgroup predates the
concept of a Charter, where a Code of Conduct would normally be found).
There seems to be rampant straying off-topic, without consideration being
shown to the original author.

In this case, *I* was the original author.  That placed *me* in the best
position to decide what was off-topic.  When the conversation continued to
stray, after repeated attempts at correcting it's course, I decided that a
more direct approach was warranted - thus *this* thread.  What Carol
observed as a "tortuous and acrimonious turn" was the friction generated
as two helmsmen tried to steer a ship on two very different courses at the
same time.

>Clue: David has been using the forum since before the Great
>Renaming. You have a lot of gall to tell him that he's making
>assumptions; he is well-founded if he is doing so, but I don't see
>much of a leap here.

T-Rex was around before the Great Freeze, and chewed up innocent little
critters for lunch.  You think that if the T-Rex was still around, that
Homo Sapiens wouldn't be seriously thinking about wiping it out, locking
it up, or at least teaching it some table manners???

Look, I'm not a rabid regulator, and I do believe that *considerable*
leeway should be shown to participants in a discussion.  I also don't have
a problem with people disagreeing with me - Andrei and Carl took me to
task over a certain issue earlier which resulted in a complete turn-around
of my position (gee, that would be a clear example of me making an
assumption, admitting I was wrong, and then accepting the views of my
elders, wouldn't it).

BUT

Society without laws is anarchy.  Anarchy results in rule by intimidation
and suppression of opinion.  That's what we have here boys and girls.  You
can bury your head in the sand and pretend it ain't happening, but from an
outsider's perspective, this newsgroup is dominated by perhaps a dozen
veterans who consider themselves to be above reproach.  Most of those
veterans wear the "I do this for a living, so don't fuck with me." badge
(pardon my French).  Some exercise their talents with medical precision;
others carpet-bomb the area.

If you want to build a vibrant society, then you have to have laws.  Laws
are all about sacrificing individual freedoms for the benefit of society.
You don't need many - just enough to curb the excesses, and return
civility to the forum.  That'll give a chance for all those people who
have been hiding underground to come out and have their say, without fear
of reprisal.

I suggest that you make room in the FAQ for some Rules of Conduct for this
newsgroup.  I could rattle off a dozen or so things that could and should
be included, but I'll venture just one (so that no-one has to bother
fabricating an argument about me trying to take control of this group):

----
Respect the thread and it's author.

A)  If you have just written a follow-up to someone else's post, and then
look up at the subject line and think "Hey, that's got nothing to do with
what I'm talking about" then do everyone a favour and change the subject
line - rename the thread.

B)  The author started the thread with a purpose in mind - carefully read
the original message and try to understand the author's intent before
responding.  If the author wants opinions, give your opinion.  If the
author wants you to vote, vote.  If the author wants to reach consensus,
go with the flow.  Don't argue about the question, argue about the answer.
----

Because no laws exist on how to go about changing the law, I have no idea
about due process in this instance.  Do we have to vote, or does someone
make an arbitrary decision about whether it gets in or not.  If it does
get in, then what power (if any) does it have?

If this group has, in all the time since "the Great Renaming", never
bothered to adopt a Code of Conduct, to accept the rule of law, then what
is it - a retirement village for cowboys?

This post is long.  It contains many words.  Some of those words will
taken out of context.  Sarcasm will be missed.  Offence will be taken.
Before you get all upset, sharpen you tongue, and whip back a reply, I
just want to repeat six words:

RESPECT THE THREAD AND IT'S AUTHOR.

That's what this message is about.  That's what this thread is about.  The
rest is just filler, examples, analogies, anecdotes, fluff; those six
words are the essence.  If you're going to argue about something, argue
about the essence of this thread, not the package it's wrapped in.

Henry.

References

A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000