Missing Brigade (2)

[charles mueller <cmueller@metrolink.net>]

          In my musing last evening on how a discussion list might go at
  attracting the most knowledgeable people in its field--in antimonopoly
  policy, the very senior economic scholars who've written the textbooks for
  the past 4 or 5 decades, conducted the leading empirical studies of
  real-world monopolies, and so on--I was about to start my 3rd suggestion,
  got distracted, and then later inadvertently hit 'send' while posting a
  dozen or so other messages.  Here is the completed version of my suggestions
  for making a list attractive to these distinguished people:
         
                                                    .....................
                             
          1.  No name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or discourteous, uncivil,
  disrespectful or offensive posts.  
  
          2.  The list owner will himself, or through a designate, provide an
  E-mail address for the lodging of complaints under (1),  above, either by
  the person offended or by any other member of the list.
  
          3.  Upon receipt of such a complaint, the offender will be invited
  to submit  to the group, and to the person offended, an on-line apology
  which has been accepted by the latter.  Should the offender decline to do
  so, he will be forthwith removed from the list of members.          
  
                                                    ......................
  
          This morning I joined another antitrust discussion list, one
  administered by the American Bar Association (ABA).  Its policy guidelines
  include the following:
  
          'This list is a privilege and personal attacks and profanity will
  not be tolerated.         If you feel that this privilege is being abused by
  a subscriber, it is your right            and your RESPONSIBILITY to email
  to listman@abanet.org and report this.'
          
          This covers my points (1) and (2).  And it would hardly be
  surprising if, in their application, this group of lawyers doesn't also
  employ my principle (3), namely, requiring an apology (made publicly,
  on-list) that is sufficient to satisfy the person who has been offended.
  The latter point, in my view, is vital--the list is going to lose that
  offended senior scholar if HE is left with a sense of justice not fully and
  fairly done.  It is his perception of the matter that is vital to keeping
  him, which of course means that there must not just be an apology by the
  offender but that it must be of a kind and character that fully satisifes
  the victim, that is generous enough to persuade him to say, 'apology
  accepted.'  
  
          Attracting the most knowledgeable people to Net discussion groups is
  obviously the linchpin in their ability to contribute to the solution of the
  world's harder policy problems.  So far, none of the lists I've been on have
  spelled out such a consistent, coherent policy--or have attracted the full
  roster of the best in their respective fields.  'List policy' is, I believe,
  a key factor in making a real-world difference.  I hope we'll hear from
  other members who have some thoughts here.
  
          Charles Mueller, Editor
          ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
          http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller