On 2/20/01 9:24 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tracing of adjective > patterns (the most effective way I've found to trace culture shift > sources) points to one of the more intellectually > dismissive/patronising members who posts frequently, is religiously > on-topic, never attacks members, and in all public manners fits > within every rule one could think of. Good luck. You'll need it > Yet, he is sabotauging the very community basis that found the list > and its value without also providing himself as a target for > moderation or removal. Yup. You can't remotely call it a troll, but the end result is the same. It drives out people who differ from him, and list diversity suffers horribly. A bad situation. Unfortunately, you're headed into the purely subjective area of the tone of the list, and it's a minefield. > direct competition with one of his commercial ventures and has > caused him to have to re-write his business plans to work around > the non-profit and attempt to salvage his sunk costs. Oh, ouch. So on top of everything else, there are issues of conflict of interest (going in both directions) and the ability to claim you're trying to harrass him. > I find myself somewhat in a quandry as to how to approach this. > Approaching him will not help (done before, behaviour worsened, he > has little to lose and a lot to gain). That's the first try. And yes, most times it doesn't help. > The list is hand moderated. The temptation is to silently boot him. Bad move. It plays into his hand. Whatever you do, if you do anything, do it openly, and with as much public consensus and feedback as you can. > Ideas on approaching this? Yeah, all bad. I'd like to say I've had thiings that worked, but in my experience, I've never really handled these situations in a way I thought worked. These days, I try to isolate these things as early as possible, and shoot to kill early while the problem is small. Once the problem is big and people get involved in taking sides, all hell usually breaks loose. Unfortunately, when it's small, you usually don't notice it. I've had lists die over stuff like this. I dunno -- all paths lead to schism, or worse. Maybe schism isn't bad -- at some point, you say "this is the way it's done here, if you don't cooperate, we'll have to ask you to leave". But if he does, he's likely to take his faction with him, and you end up with two lists that don't like each other. And given your organizational situation -- that's tough politically. You'd need, IMHO, everyone on your side to understand what's going on and back you in doing it, since you don't want someone to wuss out in the management chain when the heat hits. They might do it anyway, agreements or no. Ugh. Have you considered resigning and having them giv ethe list to soemone else? -- Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com> [<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you. How about never? Is never good for you?
