[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 November 20, 2003 at 8:50PM -0800,
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> 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.

Contacting the "participants" individually was wrong insofar as
the "off-topicality" was the product of all the amusing,
analytic, angry, perhaps even anarchistic posts of list members
who, I'm sure, didn't plan on wreaking "collective" havoc.
Saying "participants" makes it sound as if there was a conspiracy
of some sort.

> Most of these either didn't respond (but ceased posting to the
> thread) or replied apologetically.

I suspect most of them were responding to Colin Watson's public

> Several disputed the basis of my request.  Which is:
>   - List charter:  "Help and discussion among users of Debian".
>   - Code of conduct:  ""

Speaking for myself, I disputed the means you employed, a direct
email written with a curtness that sounded condescending (even if
it wasn't).  Colin's approach was better, even if the language
was more brutal, "shouting" at the "mob" to stop.  Think of it
this way.  When you emailed me, I'd thought I was being singled
out.  Nowhere in your first email did you mention that you
contacted others.  OTOH Colin's post managed to spread the
"blame" so that nobody felt directly responsible for causing the

> > 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.

This is what I do know.  You emailed me the very day (given some
allowance for the off-line time zone difference) I made two
off-topic posts.  I assumed you thought those two posts of mine
were "excessive" and so thought you were "being" hypocritcal for
having participated in other off-topic threads in the past.  In a
later email you claimed that you immediately took off-topic
discussions off-list when requested.  So would I, if requested.
But your first email was more like a gag order: "Could you please
restrict your d-u postings to on-topic subjects?"

Am I being too harsh on that one sentence?  Yes.  Because that
was the entire contents of your first email.  You probably would
have gotten a better response if the request came with an
explanation about list etiquette and how world politics isn't
really the subject of Debian User.  Yes, people do have to be
reminded from time to time not to cross when the light is red or
not to smoke in a no-smoking area.    

Your explanation came later, when anger had taken possession of
my keyboard.


Reply to: