[p2p-research] further contribution by David Ronfeldt on p2p as successor system

Sat May 23 09:55:44 CEST 2009

I suggested due process for 2 separate issues:

1) the moderation actions of Ryan which you feel to be unfair

2) the issue of sending limits on this email list

Individuals exists and have rights

Communities exists and have governance, good and bad, charismatic,
meritocratic, sovereign etc ...

Due process is that attempts to bridge the individual and collective but you
have to be willing to play to game. If you want to participate in a
community, any community, there will always be either pre-existing rules,
rules that you create if you start a group of your own, or emerging rules in
case of conflict between individuals ..

This requires that there is a community, i.e. a group of peope trying to
achieve something ... If you think the community itself is not legitimate,
the issue is not resolvable .. There is no way to resolve this without you
engaging with the other people, and if you do that, it's always better to
avoid too much antagonism as this create extreme reactions all over ...

It doesn't have to be that way,

Michel

On 5/23/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Michel,
>
> I said and I say it again very clearly, the community does not have to
> follow me. The community can set a filter within seconds to filter out my
> messages per each person's discretion, not by top down filtering by the
> admins.
>
> Due process is a phrase. What is the actual intent: to gang up against
> someone who does not want to agree to some arbitrary rule(s)?
>
> If that's the intent, which it seems it is because you keep saying that I
> want the community to follow my will which is absolutely not true and is
> invalid: I have said the members of the community can filter what they don't
> like, to avoid top down censorship which is what we have now.
>
> Is the due process to address errors committed by both sides (the admins
> and myself) or only to address errors committed by myself? Your tone seems
> to indicate the latter, which is to say that the due process is just a funny
> way of doing more wrong, not fixing the situation.
>
> You are accusing me of trying to bend the community to my will, which I
> have clearly stated to the opposite: I want the admins to stop acting like
> Cops and power trip, with or without the community's encouragement.
>
> So you tell me, what is the intent of the due process and is it applied to
> correcting the error in judgment committed by the admins or only the error I
> am being accused of by you and the admins?
>
> Anyway, I see where this is going, and it is very funny to be witnessing
> the unraveling of reason and the emergence of crowd behavior.
>
> Marc
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Marc,
>>
>> unless this is an earlier reaction ...
>>
>> we have proposed to set up a due process for this issue, there is not more
>> that can be done, since what you propose is a unilateral decision by
>> yourself and the community having to follow you, and I do not see things
>> happening?
>>
>> Noboby has nominated Ryan nor Kevin, they volunteered, and they have
>> earned the trust of most of us. The only thing which can avoid ego fights is
>> due process, which we are proposing to you.
>>
>> Is there any alternative?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>   On 5/23/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The herd does not need to bow to my will. The herd can filter at their
>>> own discretion.
>>>
>>> Why should I bow to the herd's demands if they don't work for me? I can't
>>> trim messages form my mobile phone and I want all replies in the same place
>>> for ease of comprehension. If My brain works differently then I get kicked
>>> out of the list? moderated out? I said I would agree to a logically
>>> motivated limit (not arbitrary as teh 100K limit we have now) based on what
>>> Google considers a normal length message.
>>>
>>> You and Ryan playing judge, jury and executioner by moderating me out is
>>> what is going on.
>>>
>>> My trust in Michel and P2P Foundation will be removed if the decision is
>>> not reversed.
>>>
>>> To Judge, Jury and Executioner who decided this: you have lost your moral
>>> standing.
>>>
>>> Enjoy YOUR list.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Kevin Carson <
>>> free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  > So because I don't accept the arbitrary message length rule (yet
>>>>  > accept the logical one based on Google limit) then you subjectively
>>>>  > call that abuse and moderate me out of the list.
>>>>
>>>>  > This wrongness will be exposed. That even in a forum advocating
>>>>  > openness and equality that someone would assume authority and
>>>> moderate
>>>>  > out an individual who disagreed with some arbitrary rule regarding
>>>>  > message length.
>>>>
>>>>  > I'm sure Michel does NOT stand for this. If he does that would be
>>>> news
>>>>  > to me.
>>>>  > I can see thru you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not long ago, you dismissed requests to observe netiquette
>>>> (specifically to trim posts) as tantamount to expecting you to bow to
>>>> "the herd," and used a lot of pseudo-Nietzschean rhetoric about
>>>> unique, creative individuals being stifled by arbitrary rules.  And
>>>> you pointed out that any members of "the herd" who didn't like your
>>>> lack of consideration could simply filter out your emails.
>>>>
>>>> But when the system started automatically bouncing your untrimmed
>>>> posts, you complained about it and demanded we adjust the list
>>>> settings--in other words, the unique, superior, creative individual
>>>> demanded that the herd bow to his convenience.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Charlie.  As you said of our taking the trouble to filter you,
>>>> if you don't like having your messages bounced you can start trimming
>>>> them.  Why should "the herd" bow to your will?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kevin Carson
>>>> Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
>>>> Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
>>>> http://mutualist.blogspot.com
>>>> Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
>>>> http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
>>>> Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
>>>>
>>>> http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Marc Fawzi
>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>
>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090523/a2659065/attachment-0001.html>