Trudy, these are great questions and answers to them, over time, might
provide a sensible way forward. Here's some brief thoughts, plus a set of
guidelines (below) from another list I'm on that seem to work pretty well
for it - might be some ideas we could use?
The idea that we should boot off anyone on the grounds that their opinions
are offensive, or not ours, seems counterproductive to me. It's also hard
to draw that line. I understand, I think, why some people are infuriated by
certain interventions, but some of us aren't. Karen, personally, I'm happy
to have you on the list, though I wish you would engage with discussion more
and respond to specific points rather than just belch forth. Such an
approach strikes me as silly and defeats the purpose of being involved and
just makes people think you aren't sincere. If you are, you should start
acting like it. But this applies to all of us.
I also thought Ben raised some interesting points, especially about whether
the list was a 'microcosm of a democracy' or a 'sanctuary'. My vote would
be that it's the former - a place for debate with whomever wants to express
an opinion. A sanctuary, to my mind, runs the risk of being too cosy and
ingrown. I think some good comes of open (and sometimes confrontational)
debate. The exchange tonight between Graham and Eleanor is a good example,
and it is also a good example of how people can disagree strongly but
civilly - we all should take note. But I can see the point Ben is making
and would be interested in hearing other opinions.
Still, some rules are necessary and those below seem pretty good to me,
though maybe a bit stronger in places than I would ideally want - they're
just for consideration. Whatever rules are in place, enforcement should be
up to Trudy, but we all should get to express an opinion. Votes might be
useful but only as a last resort and after much discussion.
Trudy wrote:
>--How do we try to change 60% of the Australian public when we can't
>handle just one of them on the list?
Bloody good question. Though I think we have 'handled' it pretty well.
Karen has done nothing to change anyone's mind, I'll bet, but some good has
come out of the various discussions (I'm tempted to say it's amazing what
will grow in shit but I won't).
Tim
==============================
Here's the guidelines from the other list:
Our Forum System's rules of operation are aimed at keeping the forum
environment safe, productive, and congenial.
For everyone's safety, no illegal actions are permitted, nor will any be
tolerated.
This is not a political statement of support for existing laws many of which
are of course innane or, more to the point, biased in the interested of
wealth and power. It is instead a social statement of collective norms of
survival for a progressive online system.
This is a moderated system and we intend to ensure that users enjoy a
congenial, friendly, and respectful environment. In particular:
Any kind of harassment is forbidden, including overt sexism, racism, or
classism, of course, but also including any kind of demeaning or otherwise
hostile disrespect of others.
Hounding others is forbidden, even for perfectly respectful ends, such as
continually emailing or publicly posting messages trying to engage or to
continue exchanges with folks who have clearly indicated (publicly or
privately) their desire to leave an exchange.
Likewise, questioning ideas and claims and offering varied views on matters
is of course wonderful. But questioning user's private motivations is not.
Finally, when referring in public posts to the views that other people on
the system always incorporate quotes from the people that do in fact make
those points.
But, to be sure, everything not forbidden is welcome.
And, by the way, to facilitate navigation and comprehension by other users:
Please learn to use message quoting for your forum posts. Quote enough to
provide context, but not so much that you are wasting users' time.
Please enter a topic, particularly when you wish to start a new thread.
Finally, communicating online is a little tricky. You don't see anyone's
facial expressions, nor hear their tone. As a result, what an author thinks
is a cute turn of phrase meant purely in jest, can often appear to the
reader to be a pointed attack or assault, not funny at all. Please be
careful, especially with sarcasm. Fun and humor are very important
components of good communication, but online you have to exert a little care
lest you be seriously misunderstood.
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
