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

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

List Monitors

Complaint against Jeff Williams (see below)
Grounds:  Flaming, Insults and Slander
(a)    That I regularly violate the rules
(b)    That I am dishonest and deceptive
(c)    That I betray my official mandate

>   I must concur with Eric here.  The old logical fallacy of "Appeal to
Authority"
> is or was definitely exercised here in the extreme.  Therefore I would
> like to register a complaint against Patrick Corliss for this obvious
violation
> of the very rules to which he purports to support, yet we have now seen
> on three different occasions in the past three weeks he does not
> intend to adhere to himself...

Regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>
Cc: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; Babybows.com
<webmaster@babybows.com>; David Farrar <david@farrar.com>; [GA] <ga@dnso.org>;
dnso abuse <ga-abuse@dnso.org>; DNSO Secretariat <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.


> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I must concur with Eric here.  The old logical fallacy of "Appeal to
Authority"
> is or was definitely exercised here in the extreme.  Therefore I would
> like to register a complaint against Patrick Corliss for this obvious
violation
> of the very rules to which he purports to support, yet we have now seen
> on three different occasions in the past three weeks he does not
> intend to adhere to himself...
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > 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@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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
> --
> 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
>