Re: [ifwp] Civil discourse (was Re: Secret meetings)

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:40:00 +1200

At 11:48 9/01/99 +0000, jeff Williams wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
<snip>
>> No, Jeff, this is not a proposal for censorship, but a proposal to combat
>> the kind of flaming that is intended to silence people.
>
> I agree Joop in this instance and it applies to ALL of those whom
>frequently engage in personal attacks. However to single out
>Michael is a gross miscarriage of fairness and justice.
>there are many others, such a Kent Crispin, Chris Ambler, Antony
>Van Courvering, ect, that are FAR more guilty of personal attacking
>than Michael is.
>
No intention to single out anyone. Michael just provided the right example
of incivility that I needed to propose moderation.
This is not about people, but about procedures that make a better list.

I really want to propose a system of graduated ostracism.
lowest level: a tickoff by the moderator
second level: a warning by the moderator
third level: a threat of removal of write privileges unless an apology is
offered to the offended party. (yellow card)
fourth level: formal procedures by the enlire list membership for long-term
removal (red card)
(this last level will need a proper list-constitution and a voting mechanism)

Volunteer moderators can be selected by open acclamation or vote.

Let all list contributors realize that we are all human, but that
nevertheless everything said here, can and will be used against us, at
least in this court of peers.

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/