[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Eric Dierker and William Walsh

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Consider this yet another appeal of a decision Harald has made that is
not consistent with the rules.

Further let me note that Harald is taking action despite the fact that
his position is no longer valid.  The chair is responsible for
appointing a list monitor, and we have no validly elected chair
currently, thus there is no valid list monitor under the rules.

You have emailed people who are talking about the IDNO on the list and
warned that if they continue talking about this subject they will face
suspension.  In this single act you have declared on your own and in
contravention of the rules that that a subject cannot be discussed,
simply because you are tired of it.


The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
Not using offensive language

My post was never a personal attack, I've always answered in response
to the ISSUES, not the person.  I've maintained decorum, and never
insulted or slandered him, or used offensive language.

The messages are clearly relevant to the business of the DNSO, because
one of the big issues before the DNSO IS the individual's
constituency.

You don't like that this conflict between his views and mine has gone
on as long as it has, and you don't like reading about it.

Fine.

But that does NOT give you the right or the ability to censor it.

You can request all you want, but you do not have the right, or the
ability (without abusing your position) to decide that because YOU and
some others are tired of hearing about an issue that the issue should
not be discussed, or to limit WHO can discuss it.

If you do not see the personal attack in Jeff's message, and consider
mine personal attacks, you only show that you are inclined to a
selective enforcement of the rules, as well as that you are willing to
twist the rules to include anything that you just simply do not like.

The thread that started this has been the most active thread on the
list, and it generated some very nice discussion on exactly what the
GA has accomplished and where it should go from here.  Before that, we
were discussing .int policies, and a couple of posts about our
continued lack of a chair.

You want to twist the rules to get rid of things you don't like, and
that's exactly what you have done here.

You have abused your position, and this assembly's rules, and shown
that perhaps we should have listened to Michael Froomkin's warnings
that this is exactly how the rules would end up being twisted.


Monday, February 12, 2001, 4:31:48 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> The list monitor has received a number of complaints about list behaviour 
> over the last few days.
> In general, they are concerned with William Walsh's attacks on Joop 
> Ternstra over IDNO, Joop Ternstra's attacks on William Walsh, Eric 
> Dierker's postings on all and sundry, Andy Gardner's posting of private 
> email, and Jeff Williams' complaints about the attacks.

> The list monitor wishes to remind the members of the language of the list 
> rules:

>     - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
>     - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>          1.Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>          2.Not using offensive language

> The two bullets are given as examples of "a minimum of decorum", and are 
> not an exhaustive description of "decorum".

> It should be quite clear by now that decorum is not the operative term for 
> the current debate. In particular, I point out:

> Eric Dierker:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00322.html

> William Walsh:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00316.html

> Andy Garner:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00270.html
> (reposting of abusive material, personal attack in commentary)

> I am particularly saddened by the fact that William Walsh seems to have 
> considered the lifting of his earlier suspension not as a warning against 
> his activities, but as a carte blanche to post any kind of attack on Joop's 
> behaviour in the IDNO that he considers relevant to the IDNO/GA debate, as 
> long as no single word of his many postings can be considered abusive in 
> and of itself.

> This is neither observing decorum nor a constructive approach to getting 
> work done in the GA.

> The list monitor, believing that this is the minimum action required, 
> therefore hereby suspends the posting rights of William Walsh and Eric 
> Dierker for 2 weeks from today.
> Joop Ternstra and Andy Gardner in particular are warned that continuing the 
> debate in the current style is not consistent with decorum, and that 
> continuing the debate about interpretations of the history of the IDNO is 
> inconsistent with relevance to the GA.

> The suspensions will end on February 26.

> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com