[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)



on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben (ben_foley@web.de) 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, 

I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants of the
thread, after it had persisted for several days.  Most of these either
didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied
apologetically.

Several disputed the basis of my request.  Which is:

  - List charter:  "Help and discussion among users of Debian".
  - Code of conduct:  ""

> and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone
> with a brain. particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference
> above are totally unwarranted 

Several of the individuals who chose to dispute (at length) my request
with me made specific reference to anarchist principles.

I'd recommend you speak of what you know.  In this case, you are beyond
your depth.

> 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. 

Consequences are simply a matter of mutual respect.  If you show respect
of others on the list by following posted and general Netiquette
guidelines, you'll find your postings receive a reading, and possibly, a
response.

If you choose to abuse the list and its subscribers, you'll find that
people chose to ignore your postings, either on a case-by-case basis, or
by technical means, including killfiles.  I also specifically forwarded
at least one message to a Debian project member as the individual more
or less explicitly begged to be removed from the list, and I was unable
to fulfill the reqeust.

As several individual failed to show respect to the list, and
specifically showed a studied lack of respect to either myself, Colin
Watson, or both, I felt that the favor of a reply or reading was no
longer warranted.


> on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that
> debian-curiosa exists. 

Colin wasn't the only person to mention this, if you'll check the
record.

> 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.

Agreed.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est.
		        SCO vs IBM Linux lawsuit info:  http://sco.iwethey.org

Attachment: pgphwNIC1KgFT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: