"E. Shaun Russell" wrote:
>
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >The list supposedly has rules as to what is and is not
> >allowed, but enforcement is all but non-existent. It
> >seems to me that the ambitions of the Extropy
> >Institute--more specifically Max, Greg, Natasha, et
> >al, ie, those who have invested huge parts of there
> >life to make ExI what it is, and to make its mark in
> >the world--are being sacrificed--at least here on the
> >list--by a failure on the part of the list "owners" to
> >enforce a minimum standard of courtesy/respect (dare I
> >say "adult" behavior).
>
> Well, I haven't seen anything lately that I feel is contemptible enough to
> deal with in an authoritarian manner. Also, no one has contacted me
> directly regarding any extraneous offence that has been dished out. I
> would rather not have to "enforce" anything, and as has been the case in
> the past (both recent and more distant), a spontaneous order of sorts has
> always sorted things out in the long run. Threads about improving the list
> pop up a few times each year, but the general consensus has always been
> that the current method (hands off except for in extreme circumstances such
> as the gun discussion moratorium in '99) is the best.
The bilge that some have dumped on me is not contemptible? I
hold it in great contempt. If you want a formal complaint or
require one before you take notice then consider this a formal
complaint. The treatment I have received from John Clark and
Mike Lorrey does not belong on a civilized list. The list rule
says no personal attacks. It has obviously been violated.
Either the rule means something or it doesn't. You decide.
Not that I can't deal with such and ignore them largely. But it
certainly does detract from my enjoyment and willingness to
participate and ability to share what I am actually here for.
So, yes, I do experience such as a degradation of the list
personally. Enough so that I have been tempted multiple times
of late to give this list up as a bad job.
>
> >The responsibility for the destruction of the
> >reputation of ExI, and of the list and all its
> >participants does not, however, rest with John Clark,
> >but with the list owners and their failure to insist
> >on and enforce a standard of respect for the discourse
> >in this forum.
>
> In the list rules (which I will send separately after this message), there
> is a disclaimer that "...Extropy Institute does not take responsibility for
> the use or misuse of posts addressed to the extropians list." While I am
> occasionally discouraged by the level of discussion on this list, I beg to
> differ that the reputation of ExI is being destroyed by the discourse on
> this list. I don't see that as being the case at all; please let me know
> how you feel this has been done.
>
> The bottom line is this: am I happy that there have been ad hominem attacks
> on this list over the past few days? No, I'm not happy about it at
> all. However, I've paid close attention to the threads as they have
> progressed and don't feel that they need any administrative force
> applied. For the record, the administrative process would be this: I would
> find (via forwarded complaint, offensive post etc.) something I felt to be
> an issue of concern. I would then forward that to Max More so that he (and
> the board of Directors as well as VP Greg Burch) could determine whether or
> not action should be taken. Those measures would then be carried out.
>
In short you have a bureaucracy, would have to file paperwork
and would greatly prefer not to be bothered. OK.
> If anyone has an issue with the way I have done my job, please let Max and
> I know.
>
I have an issue with what looks like being rather defensive. I
can handle the bullies and muckrackers but please don't tell me
that such is nothing that is against the rules of the list or
damaging to the list. I can handle insults much more easily.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT