Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:49:14 +0000,
ben wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800
> csj <csj@zapo.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800,
> > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > >
> > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj (csj@zapo.net) wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800,
> > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have
> > > > > replied that self-control is apparently beyond their
> > > > > mein, I'll remind them that consequences for actions
> > > > > are also their responsibility. Including finding
> > > > > themselves ignored by those who value s over n.
> > > >
> while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance of
> our collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread
> be closed, i think that there were only one or two respondents
> who failed to respect that request. karsten's manner, on the
> other hand, comes across as an order, and, as such, is damn
> near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone with a brain.
What got to me was that he emailed me in private -- after I
committed two off-topic, but properly labeled posts to the thread
-- and in a polite but apparently condescending manner asked me
to:
"Could you please restrict your d-u postings to on-topic
subjects?"
The terseness of the request made it subject to a variety of
unsavory interpretations, the first of which is that I tend to be
off-topic in most of my "d-u postings" (the use of the plural
suggests something done as a habit). That might be true, of
course. I'm not the final arbiter of the topicality of my posts.
But since it was his first communication to me regarding the
matter, he should have qualified it.
Yes, it also came across as an order. Given the lack of an
explanation, it sounded like the order (albeit a polite one) of a
General to his foot soldiers. Don't ask why, just do it.
> particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference above
> are totally unwarranted and indeed no less of an indulgence
> than participation in the thread itself. furthermore, the
> threat of "consequences" strikes me as a tad too authoritarian
> for this particular list.
For me that was dumping fuel on the (f)ire.
> on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that
> debian-curiosa exists. perhaps we can arrive at a rule whereby
> the third, fourth, or fifth response to an off-topic thread
> would be directed--on the list--to make use of debian-curiosa
> as a more appropriate venue.
I would rather have a one-day grace period (with allowance for
time zone difference). Or until the posts reach Swen-like
proportions. Having a hard and fast rule will require
moderation.
Reply to: