Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying to

Sat Aug 15 22:43:50 EDT 2009

Rather than attempting to deal with personalities/intentions (viz.
"trolls/trollism") I think we should focus on acceptable/unacceptable
behaviours.  

In the lists I've hosted over the years I've adopted the "living room rule"
i.e. any behaviour that I wouldn't accept in my living room I won't accept
on an e-list that I host...

The kind of mocking/goading/personalized attacking behaviour that is
evidenced below and by emails coming from several new members of the list is
to my mind unacceptable as it acts to intimidate/bully and otherwise close
off discussion and restrict participation.

I would suggest that the co-moderators of the list introduce arbitrarily or
otherwise some limits on acceptable list behaviour (attacks on the person
not on the idea for example) and after appropriate warning remove offenders
from the list accordingly.  This is not censorship, rather it is
self-preservation and necessary for the on-going effective functioning of
this group.

MBG

-----Original Message-----
From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 7:05 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Milton don't start with the private email. Re: [governance] Trying
to

Milton i'm not a big fan of private email with elitist intellectuals. I'm
holding you accountable here in your public role.

On 8/15/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote: 

Opposition to posting limits is not advocacy of censorship, Joe. 

Mendacem memorem esse oporte. Don't pull this argumentative nonsense with
me. Focus Milton. Focus. You are an elitist intellectual leader here. You
set the minimum standards - abera lege?

You are seen here as a leader. Your job is to lead. Not feed the trolls. It
is completely irrelevant at this point what you have to say in this. The big
problem is that you keep feeding the censorship trolls. Your so called
advocacy amounts to no more nor less then fanning the flames that keep the
censorship trolls trolling. Your BWG - you know what your doing - you should
known better - isto pensitaris.

You have also libeled and slander Jeff Williams, Hugh Dierker, Karl Peter
and myself. I dismiss it as party games and i'm sure Hugh and Jeff can look
after themselves. But to liable and slander Karl Peters? Thats very
impolitic of you. Nes pas? Karl Peters sees you as a patron saint of the
TLDA? According to them - thats Bradley Thornton, Gene Marsh, and Richard
Sexton you promised them support to the TLDA if needed. I detect some non
disclosed conflict of interest in this libel and slander.

But you don't know Karl. I can call Karl a fool - I know him well - but you
can't. Karl is not your intellectual equal nor superior by any stretch of
the imagination. I don't think there is any question of that. He is very
much your inferior. By pointing him out like you did in your capacity as an
intellectual elitist amounts to playing the bully. Thats not nice. The
eltist intellectual has caused an inferior pain. There is blood on your
hands.

You supposed to be helping Karl run the TLDA and fulfilling your promises.
Not libeling and slandering on of it's officers and directors. Maybe your
forgetful en mendacem memorem esse oporte.

Your contributions just amount to troll feeding and the eletist intelectual
bullying of an unfortunate like Karl. How is Karl ever to get a job if
someone references that with your position.

Trying reading more carefully next time.

All I have to say to you and your conduct is da mihi sis bubulae frustrum
assae, solana tuberosa in modo gallico fricta, ac quassum lactatum
coagulatum crassum. That is tha appropriate position to take with you.

kindest regards
joe baptista

--MM

  _____  

From: publicroot.info at gmail.com [mailto:publicroot.info at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Joe Baptista
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:41 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Cc: Rui Correia 

Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

Rui makes a reasonable suggestion but I do not support posting limits
because the real problem is not the number of posts per person but the
quality and pertinence of the posts. e.g., 

Censorship. That's the elitist intellectual in you advocating censorship.
Should you not instead be focusing your time on your inclusive GNSO project?
Instead of advocating censorship? Milton.

if Parminder and Bill Drake are really going at it, I wouldnt mind seeing
10 each from both of them in one day. Any reasonable posting limit  say, 5
per day  would still allow people who have nothing to say but plenty of
time, to waste our time and generate reactions from others. 

More elitist intellectual censorship moralist mongering. Milton - you are
here to lead - not feed the censorship trolls this nonsense.

Now how is your little project going.? Where do I join?

regards
joe baptista

  _____  

From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:49 AM

To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list

Dear All

I am on a list on which they imposed a quota of daily posting by members -
that will at least address the issue of having some members commenting on
every single posting that others submit on a given issue. Anyone exceeding
the quota gets a warning and after that suspension for x amount of time. 

Obviously there should be exceptions for list admin/ event up-date
announcements etc by list administrators.

And implement something like this is no more censorship than setting a time
limit during question time/ not allowing same person to make more than one
question during question time/ not accepting submission of more than x
hundred words. Time is valuable, we are all very busy and so it is only fair
that we allow as many people a voice in as short time as possible, taking
into account that we have to set aside time to read others' contributions.

And unless we are voting, could we perhaps cut down on "yes, I agree"/ "good
point, Joe Soap" - unless Joe Soap's point actually makes you change your
mind, in which case you might want to retract/ amend your earlier position
making it clear that that is what you are doing.   

Best regards,

Rui

2009/8/14 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

Hi all,

I think it is a mistake to conflate the issue of discourse pollution with
the issue of decision making capacity.

The strength of this list relies on its openness, which facilitates
contributions from IG participants and observers regardless of their
membership status. If we moved advocacy related discussions to more specific
lists, the general discussion list would most likely become irrelevant
within a few months. So, like Avri, I am very much against creating or
moving the discussion to new lists as a means of dealing with abuse.

The creation of troll filters is a good interim solution but not sufficient
to protect the open space of this list. For example, filters don't prevent
ad hominem attacks.

After having skimmed through the "unsubscribe" discussion of the last 10
days, I get the feeling that the lack of decision making capacity, which is
so typical for this list, applies also to the issue of trolls.

My suggestion would be to ask the coordinators to come up with a few options
for action.
One option, supported by Ginger and Parminder, is to move this discussion
elsewhere.
Another option would be to adjust our charter by adding a section on abuse.

The following para of our charter, for example, could be expanded a bit to
take into account other forms of of discourse pollution:

"Some of the specific guidelines that will be enforced include those
relating to:
*No personal insults
*No spam"

The members of this list would have to agree on a general definition of
abuse and appropriate means of action against it.

There might be other options. In any case, I would like to ask out
coordinators to apply some form of leadership to overcome the present
impasse and help restoring this discussion space.

jeanette

Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison 
Roodepoort-Johannesburg, 
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com

-- 
Joe Baptista

www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090815/ee2bf978/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance