Re: abandoning the rules of discourse
srivasta@datasync.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 23.10.97 in <877mb4wpic.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>:
> >>"Ronald" == Ronald van Loon <ronald@and.nl> writes:
>
> Ronald> The real question is: do we want rules or do we trust that
> Ronald> everyone will behave as mature individuals.
>
> I think that past experience shows that peope can't be
> expected to behave as mature individulas, at least not all people,
> all of the time.
I think it also shows that enough people can be relied on to do that
enough of the time. At least on the Debian lists.
> Ronald> I'd like to opt for the latter, although I know that the
> Ronald> occasional tiff (or is that with one 'f') will occur anyway,
> Ronald> people being what they are. People feel strongly about a
> Ronald> project like Debian and in my opinion, that is good for the
> Ronald> project because it lessens the chance of inertia.
>
> Strong opinions do not necessitate crude and offensive
> language ;-).
Sometimes, they do.
> Ronald> Mutual respect should be earned and not enforced by rules.
>
> Quite so. But even you say "should", not is.
Well, in my experience, respect is *never* created by rules. If you make
the rules strong enough, you may create a situation where you can no
longer detect the presence or absence of respect; I wouldn't want to live
under these rules.
Not everything and everyone actually _deserves_ respect, though people
surely disagree about which is which.
> I would not be opposed to a note in the charter of the mailing
> lists that said repeated abusive or disruptive behaviour on the lists
> could lead to corrective action, like digestifying a persons posts or
> even expulsion (I think the list maintainer reserves the right to do
> so anyway, right?)
The problem with this is the definition of "abusive or disruptive
behaviour on the lists". My definition for that surely wouldn't include
any reference to obscene language, for example ...
MfG Kai
Reply to: