[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Missing Brigade (2)
I personally would also much prefer it if this list adhered to the ABA list
standard rather than no standard at all. I find the flames annoying to sift
through. I also recognize that the folks at essential are busy, and that
moderating is a lot of work.
charles mueller wrote:
> 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 email@example.com 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
> 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
fn: Hans Reiser
org: The Naming System Venture
adr: 6979 Exeter Dr.;;;Oakland;CA;94611;USA
note: Phone: +1 (510) 459-4681