At 12:17 12/01/99 -0500, Bret Faucett wrote:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>rules of graduated ostracism
>
>I like the phrase and I'm intrigued by the concept, but how would it work
>in a consistent, non-arbitrary way?
>
Sorry Bret for not coming back sooner. I need to have a life too. :-)
You may have looked at my previous posting on this and at the ORSC civil
discourse rules.
http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/
Moderation is a largely arbitrary affair and when people's rights to speak
out are involved you'd want to err on the side of tolerance.
Yet, there are ways to ensure that it happens in a fair way:
1. The moderators are nominated and elected by the group. This gives them
the moral authority to do their unenviable job.
2. They are moderators, not arbitrators. They try to guide the behaviour of
wayward participants, mostly via private email.
3. If an unrepentant offensive character really needs to lose
write-permission on a list of great import, (s)he should have the
opportunity of a fair hearing and a vote of all list members.
As I said, this last measure would need a proper list-constitution.
But in my experience, good moderators can do much of the job without ever
reaching that final stage. But then, those list are generally not
battlegrounds. <g>
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
