[governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

Sat Nov 24 16:06:51 EST 2007

Kieren:

I agree that we need to avoid ad hominem attacks. More about that later. 

But your example below is precisely what people fear when there is talk of “moderation” of the list and an attempt to enforce standards of civility. It can easily transform into the kind of censorship Rony Koven is warning about. What I see in my response to Jacky is a substantive discussion of, and disagreement about, the nature of global democracy and the At Large. There is nothing personal about it. There may be different styles of communication but that’s always going to be an issue in a global forum combining different cultures. Fundamentally, we are having political debates. Some of us believe that the stakes are high. Any attempt to de-politicize these disagreements by calling one side “rude” is not any sort of progress. 

I have difficulty understanding how my claim that a certain position is “more accurate” than Jacky’s view is provocative or personalized. It simply calls to our attention a real and important logical contradiction between those who (like Jacky) are claiming that global voting for Board members is not in the interest of smaller countries and the developing world, and those who believe that it would significantly shift authority over global governance to them. I think Jacky’s position is not correct. She no doubt thinks it is. I’m willing to hear more about her position. It’s an important debate and it should not be disrupted or pushed aside by overly sensitive claims of “rudeness.” Your claim basically short-circuits that debate. 

The same goes for an earlier comment you tried to dismiss as “ad hominem.” I made a comparison between the China-imposed electoral system in Hong Kong and ICANN’s so-called “bottom-up” consultative system. I cannot fathom how such a comment was interpreted by you as “ad hominem.” It was about political structures; it was not about you. Unless you mean that you will interpret any political criticism of your employer as a personal insult.  

“Ad hominem” means that the argument relates “to the man [person]”. My arguments are not about personalities. They are about ideas and principles. From my point of view, both you and Jacky are fun and interesting people. No reason and intention to attack either of you personally. Frankly, I am not the least interested in personalities, practically to a fault. You have seen me agree with you online (something that has of course never been reciprocated) and you will see me disagree when our ideas differ. The same can occur with any other person on the list. That’s all it’s about. This is to be contrasted with, e.g., Suresh, almost all of whose comments about me are motivated entirely by personal animosity and have zero substance (e.g., I am “full of bile”). Which brings us to another point: sure, in the heat of debate I may stray over the line and offend people once in a while. Let me know when I do that. But if you want to be credible when you do, try applying the same standards to Veni and Alejandro and Suresh and all others.  

   _____  

From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 1:18 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

> i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.

I think you’re spreading too far afield with this approach, Avri.

I would define rudeness in the context that I was complaining about as:

“The deliberate use of provocative language intended to irritate or annoy an individual; ascribing negative connotations to an individual without evidence or reasoned analysis; mockery or dismissal of someone’s else’s honestly held viewpoint.”

I think it is fine to refer to individuals’ comments and suggestions, and it is also fine to disagree with them – in fact, that is exactly what works best with these sorts of discussions. As an example of what I think is fair comment, I will refer to a comment inserted by Milton this morning as a perfect example of the sort of rudeness that this list could well do without.

In response to a Jacqueline comment, Milton responded:

“Well, all I can say is that the reason most American business people are terrified of such voting is that they conclude (more accurately than you, I am afraid) that such a mechanism would empower the "new Internet world" of tens of millions of Chinese and Indians and, in relative terms, erode their current power. ”

The “more accurately than you, I am afraid” was deliberately provocative, added nothing to the discussion, came with no evidence or reasoned analysis, and both mocked Jacqueline and dismissed her honestly held viewpoint.

It has no place in reasonable discussions. Which is a shame because Milton then went on to raise some interesting ideas about ALSes which I personally would be happy to discuss but which I won’t respond to because of the unpleasantness earlier in the email.

Kieren

   _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:57 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Rudeness tectics (was Re: Reinstate the Vote)

On 23 nov 2007, at 08.09, Norbert Bollow wrote:

Given that the use of rudeness tectics against specific people with

the goal of reducing their ability to effectively communicate their

viewpoints is a significant problem in internet-based group

dosucssions, I would suggest that it should be considered part of the

substance of internet governance discussions to figure out how this

problem should be addressed.

i think defining rudeness will be as difficult as defining morality.

we would also need to study the use of accusations of rudeness

in their tactical role in internet discussion.

while i do think it would make for a interesting academic exercise and if

i can find a student who also thinks it a cool subject would try to

support that research, i am not sure that it is quite ready to be considered

a substantive part of the Internet Governance debate.

a.

ps, was this rude?

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.5/1149 - Release Date: 11/24/2007 10:06 AM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071124/594b1592/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071124/594b1592/attachment.txt>