Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Frequent abusers

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 01:03 02.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>Hi Harald
>
> > In order of severity, I think we have:
> >
> > - Joe Baptista
> > - Jeff Williams
> > - William Walsh
> > - Eric Dierker
> > - Sotiris, Dave Crocker, Roeland Meyer, Jefsey Morfin, Joop Ternstra,
> > Patrick Corliss +++++ - all of which are capable of acting before thinking
> > when provoked.
>
>My feeling is that Dave Crocker must be lifted up the list.  I can cite
>hundreds of examples of "ad hominems" from him including his recent
>criticisms of Michael Froomkin.  However, his command of the language allows
>him to get away with many subtle insults.

He shares that property with several people.

>Whilst I agree that I have responded to provocation, such responses are
>rarely temperamental.  The fact is that many provocations cannot be allowed
>to stand as they simply become accepted dogma.  One such was my association
>with a call for a motion against the Chair in which I was carelessly added
>as a spiteful afterthought.

"cannot be allowed to stand" does not translate to "has to be replied to in 
anger". A simple reiteration of facts are usually sufficient.

>Whilst I have tried to temper provocation (that's what got me attacked by
>WXW) I do believe that the serious blame should go to the instigator.
>That's why Joe Baptista, Jeff Williams, William X. Walsh, Eric Dierker AND
>Dave Crocker are all more blameworthy.
>
>They cause the trouble in the first place !!  They should ALL be suspended.

I do not think we can administer "just" moderation through suspending 
someone on general principles; we need the complaint, and need to agree 
that this complaint is worthwhile to receive a sanction.

>People like Joop Ternmstra have suffered much abuse from people who set out
>to deliberately destroy his almost spiritual vision of an IDNO.

Joop Ternstra is quite capable of making people mad at him without using 
abusive language, too. See your argument above.

> > There are 2 different roles a suspension may serve:
> >
> > - Allowing a person to cool down (this would have served Eric well - if he
> >    could have stayed offlist until the medication kicked back in, or
>whatever
> >    happened to him)
> > - Getting rid of permanent troublemakers in a fair manner
> >
> > Given that we are one management team, I would suggest that we take it on
> > ourselves that once a troublemaker is suspended at least from the GA list
> > and 2 sublists, we can block him from all GA lists.
>
>Still difficult to administer.  Especially since we are so generous with
>warnings and so slow to suspend.  I note that in all of your cases, many
>quite serious offences, the chance of suspension is so remote as to be
>almost non-existent.

So far, I have administered 13 suspensions, 2 of which were overturned by 
the chair. That is significantly more than non-existent.
With the exception of the Baptista/Williams suspensions, they have all 
caused controversy on the list.

>Do you seriously mean that in all this time, and with all those insults, WXW
>has never, ever been suspended?  Not even once?  Other than recently for
>excess postings

November 13, 2000 (overturned) and April 18, 2001 (excess posting).
His style varies quite a bit; there have not been many people complaining 
to ga-abuse about him - at times I have thought of generating complaints 
myself, but I have been very hesitant to do so.


>And you cite him as one of the worst culprits!!  That's truly a very lenient
>policy.
>
> > This will ensure that most "occasional flamers" are banned in only one
> > place, and that consistent troublemakers know that they can be banned from
> > all lists.
>
>You wish @!!

It is up to the team and the chair. I am only a team member now.