[ga-abuse] Fw: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Dear Danny

Complaint about attached posting by Eric Dierker.
Grounds:  Flaming, insults and personal abuse.

It is clear to me that there is a concerted effort to undermine our work.
During the election campaign Eric Dierker posted numerous vicious and
provocative emails attacking me personally.  I was reasonably content to allow a
certain amount of latitude as it was an election campaign but he went over the
top in his attacks.

I therefore complained to the List Monitor.  However no action was taken on the
grounds that they were "out of time" and that Eric was no longer posting.  In
contrast, my own criticism of Dave Crocker were said to be worth a two-week
suspension without any warning being administered.

Dave Crocker himself got a warning although his postings are so extreme that
they warranted the protest of Karl Auerbach.  William X. Walsh has also engaged
in a flame war with Christopher Ambler both of who exceeeded their posting limit
to a really remarkable extent.

Since then William X. Walsh has attacked my reasonable attempt at list
moderation.  He has a history of this sort of behaviour on the [IDNO] list.  The
following was said to me privately by a senior and well-respected member of this
list:

> He's following the same pattern with you that he evolved with Joop. Next,
> he'll start calling you a dictator and call for your forced removal (knowing
> that it won't happen). Since that won't happen, he'll use your continued
> stay in office as an excuse to disrupt the list as much as possible. This
> will include personal attacks...be prepared. I'm not sure why he does this,
> but he considers himself judge, jury, and excutioner, the sole arbiter of
> righteousness. However, it is unclear just what his religion is.

I was then accused of exceeding my posting limit by David Farrar.  This got me a
warning from Harald.  I appreciate, and agree with, the desire for even-handed
treatment of all partipants.  However, I have been extraordinarily careful NOT
to exceed the daily limit often waiting until after midnight before posting
again.

In the present atmosphere with everyone attacking me as a target,  I feel I
cannot allow a warning to stand.  This would likely mean a suspension next time.

I was therefore forced to spend many, many hours in research to prove that the
allegation was false.  This has now led to a further personal attack by Eric
Dierker.

I am very reluctant to contribute further while these attacks continue without
action being taken.  Please reinstate my previous complaints against Eric
Dierker and and his latest email to the list.

It is an outrageous slur on what was a moderate attempt to explain our policy.
As this was EXACTLY the policy explained to me by Harald it is particularly
unfair.

Perhaps Harald might like to correct the impression that I am acting like a
dictator.

As I said before, we need to stamp our authority on the list by suspending at
least the worst trouble-makers.  Otherwise the attacks will continue.

You can see that some attacks have been directed at you but I am an easier
target.  I they get me to resign then the full force will turn onto you.

What I wonder is who, or what, is provoking this concerted effort ?  And why??

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; Babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>
Cc: David Farrar <david@farrar.com>; [GA] <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.

Dear Chair:

I use this heavily snipped message of Mr. Corliss to try to convince you to take
action before it is to late. This is the alt-chair writing this post and after
taking away the several pages of him defending himself it is clear that our own
alt-chair does not even have a handle on the concepts of rule of order. Within
the
same message he contradicts himself as to material rules/policies/practices and
custom.

You must immediately if not sooner establish rules which must be followed and
followed by the letter not by subjective and biased determinations of
individuals. A
monarchy is a rule of man and what we need is not another king but a rule of
law.
This last problem was so transparently a fight between Corliss and Walsh and
Corliss
winning because he has position that it is shocking.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I would advise that there

> has never been any intention to enforce the daily limit blindly.  The
intention
> of the restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on the list.
>
> Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and posts six or even
seven,
> emails, I would personally not consider this of utmost gravity.  But what we
are
> talking about here, as far as I can see, is a systematic and deliberate breach
> of list protocols.  This is exactly the problem, and the harm, that the
posting
> rules were introduced to combat in the first place.  It is not a minor matter.
>

The above shows a complete lack of knowledge of the differences between rules,
suggestions, custom and practice not to mention intention and motivation.

>
> There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and other lists.  My feeling
is
> that we have constructive work to do and even your post is not assisting that
> task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week working on list
research
> and debate.
>
> To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or two, here or there, I
am
> talking about sustained effort for days and days.  With very little to show
for
> it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a wasted effort unless we
have
> your support.
>

The above illustrates the labor intensity required when making up and justifying
rules on the fly. It also shows the extent to which men will go to prove
themselves
right instead of enforcing a rule.

>
> As I have been named (and now warned) I have checked my posts for the days in
> question.  This is not a trivial task because I am in Australia and perhaps 19
> hours difference in time from the West Coast of the States.  The details are
> below for ease of checking by anyone on the list who feels they need to do
that.
>

> However, I am now left with 10 postings on 17 April  2001.  This was, of
course,
> the day that I tried to bring the list to order in my official capacity as
> Co-Chair.
>
> By my count, five of these namely (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) were clearly
> official
> And without checking, I think you'll find that I signed them as such.
>
> So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 17 April also.
>
> It is clear that I have taken great care to maintain my posting rate at
exactly
> the five posts per day limit.  The fact that I reminded other people about the
> limit shows the genuine nature of my compliance.  I ask the the Chair to lift
> the warning
>
> You noted that Christopher Ambler breached the posting limit on 12, 14, 15
> April.  You will also recall that much of this was a debate with Mr Walsh.  I
> leave each of you to make your own judgment on its merits.  Mr Ambler is not
now
> subscribed.
>
> However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting that I posted the onlist
> reminder of the posting limts on 16 April, my local time.  I also intervened
the
> next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that officials are entitled to
> expect some co-operation and goodwill from those who only so recently elected
> them.
>
> Many reference have been made to the posting limit and it was clearly adopted
by
> the present administration by my posting addressed to Mr Ambler and Mr Walsh.
>

This has got to take the cake, if it is the poster's local time which determines
the
24 hour period then why did Mr. Corliss have a hard time here? Doesn't he have a
sent file that can list time and dates for himself? If it is a list 24 hour then
what?
We are talking freedom of speech here in a supposedly bottom up method.  Top
dogs
don't just make rules by posting something in a bottom up method. Since when
does a
Chair and alt-chair become an administration.

It is irresponsible alt-chair posting like this that then gets later cited by
some
records genius as establishing a rule.

>
> From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> To: Christopher Ambler <cambler-dompol@iodesign.com>; William X. Walsh
> <william@userfriendly.com>
> Cc: [GA] <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
> Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings
>
> > Hi Everybody
> >
> > I can see this particular issue taking quite a few more postings to resolve.
> > For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all try to keep to our five
> > postings per day limit.
> >
> > Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for volunteers to act as List
> Monitor.
>
> In case it is not still not clear, I again remind everybody of this list that
> there is a limit of five postings per day.  This is calculated on the basis of
> the posting party's own local time ending at midnight.  The List Monitors are
> given the discretion to allow minor and occasional breaches in circumstances
of
> genuine attempts to comply.
>
> List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this ruling is designed to
> address when applying their discretion towards postings over the daily limit.
>
> Note:    Although this posting contains an official reminder I must include it
> in my daily posting count.  Supporting documentation about my postings
follows:
>

This last is so blatant as almost all of the snipped portions of this post are
in
defense of the writer's own wrongful postings.

This has got to stop!  Mr. Younger you must establish written rules that are
posted
that we can read and abide by or suffer consequences when violated.  They must
be
put in place and then argued over and modified based upon written procedure for
such
matters.

We must have firm voting rules.
We must have firm list decorum rules.
We must have firm modification of above rules.
There must be restrictions placed upon the obscene use of position that Mr.
Corliss
is trying to manipulate.

Oh and hand picking the monitors - no, no, no, no, no!

Sincerely,
Eric Dierker

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