Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums

From: Sjoerd Schreuder <sjoerd@geodan.nl>

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

Henry Penninkilampi wrote:
[Snip]
> BUT
>
> Society without laws is anarchy.  Anarchy results in rule by intimidation
> and suppression of opinion.

I have to disagree: Anarchy is a society without a (central) gouvernment,
where the participants together decide and assure things will happen.
Anarchy is something that might work in small, dedicated societies
as the Internet (well, the Internet as it used to be a few years back).
I still think that the Internet as it used to be, is a good example of
anarchy (no gouvernment).

A society without laws is a lawless society. Even when there are laws,
but nobody listens to them, it's a lawless situation.

I agree that anarchy might result in a lawless society, but it doesn't
need to. So please do not use 'anarchy' as another word for 'lawless'.

In order not to degrade into a lawless society, every society has to have
ways to "punish" those who break the "rules". In a democracy, this power
is delegated to the gouvernment, in an anarchy, the society itself as a group
has this power. (In a dictatorship, one person has taken this power)

Still, I believe in democracy. An anarchy can only work in a small, dedicated
group. If the group grows larger, anarchy becomes unstable, and it has to
be upgraded into democracy or downgraded into a lawless society.

>            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.

Because those veterans have made very useful contributions to this group,
and they still do, they have deserved the right to regulate this group.
Their actions are visible to everyone, and when enough people start to
ignore them (Killfiles are useful), they are not longer able to regulate
this group.

One could say, that they have deserved the right to act like police,
because the "silent majority" trusts them to act correctly. If they
don't act correctly anymore, the "silent majority" will ignore them,
and that person will notice nobody listens to him.

I'm completely happy with the fact that some people dedicate a lot of time
to this group, and they have deserved my trust in their judgement. Outsiders
are not aware of the past.

If you are not happy with a "dozen veterans who dominate this group", I suggest
you stop reading any newsgroup: Every newsgroup I've seen has several
veterans who regulate the newsgroup in one way or another.

> 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.

Anarchy doesn't prevent laws/rules from emerging and be enforced. If
everyone (or at least most of them) agrees not to tolerate some kind
of behaviour, they can make one's life miserable if one continues to behave
that way.

> 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):

[Snipped]

Most of your suggestions are standard Netiquette rules, which have been
here for a long time. New people usually aren't taught those rules anymore,
so they break them, and then they are upset when they are corrected.
But apart from a hurted ego, no harm has been done, and they know what not
to do in the future.

One thing we don't need, are lawyers in every group and explicit rules
what's allowed and what's not. It's all about the spirit of the rules,
and I hope everyone has a feeling what's right. The standard guidelines
what is right and what is wrong are called the "Netiquette".

> 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?

I guess the standard procedure for a new group applies: First a RFD
(Request for Discussion), then a CFV (Call for Votes). Those rules are
formalized, and one should be able to find them in the FAQ of news.announce

Personnally, I don't think we have to go through this process: I feel
fine without charter.

> 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?

There are rules (Netiquette), and they have been around for a long time.
If they are not a "Code of Conduct", what is?

> 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.

One rule of Netiquette: Don't use sarcasm. People from all over the world,
not all of them as good in english as you are, will read your words. The
sarcasm might be obvious to you, it might not be to someone else.
Always label sarcasm as such.

English might not be my native language, I'm using it for a long time now.
But I didn't spot sarcasm in your posting; it must have been my bad
understanding of the english language not to spot it. (This is my attempt
to use sarcasm)

> 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.

I would like to replace that with:

RESPECT THE NETIQUETTE AND THE VETERANS.

> 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.

I hope I've added something to the essence of the thread.

Sjoerd Schreuder

References

Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: A short foray into the nature of public forums
spamfree@metropolis.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
A short foray into the nature of public forums
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000