Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Warning from the list monitors to Dave Crocker

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

Dave, you may appeal to the GA Chair. There is nothing we can do.

Thank you for your understanding.

/Bruce-LM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@Alvestrand.no>
Cc: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>; <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 09:07
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Warning from the list monitors to Dave Crocker


At 12:41 AM 5/9/2001, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>A state of complete anarchy was present on the list.  Hence you are
>>penalizing me for having defended myself, when the designated authorities
>>were not doing their job.
>
>dave:
>"when the designated authorities were taking several weeks to do their
>job" is the correct description.

Sorry, no.  My original assessment stands.

The job was simply not being done and there was a clear state of anarchy on
the list.

When the authorities are not doing their job, the task is left to the
victims.

There is a famous adage "justice delayed is justice denied".  The situation
on this list demonstrated the problem quite well.


>>>I am sorry this upsets you.   You have received warnings before and were
>>>nearly suspended
>>
>>You are referring to my previous warning for some reason.  Perhaps you
>>believe that the previous warning renders my opinions and position
>>somehow less relevant or meaningful?
>
>the idea that you would be unaware of violating the rules is somehow less
>convincing when you have received warnings before.

That's why it's a good thing I never claimed ignorance.  The fact that you
seem to believe otherwise is problematic, Harald.  At a minimum it suggests
that my comments are not being read very carefully.

Far more serious was that that bit of exchange with Kristy was one where
she chose to make things personal, claiming that I was picking on her.

Having judges who are predisposed to take argumentation personally -- when
there is nothing at all personal in the transcript -- is not very helpful
to the judicial process.  It suggests that  the judges do not know how to
distinguish the nature of material they are judging.


>>Yet you seem to make no similar differentiation for participants who hold
>>special position.
>
>Careful - you do not know that.

That statement came after I asked about the matter, Harald and received no
answer.  Nor did Patrick respond to the simple -- and reasonable -- query.


>>Were any of the participants in the ga-abuse deliberations accused of
>>having violating the rules?  If so, then they had a conflict of interest
>>and should not have participated in the ga-buse discussions.
>
>The complainer was not involved in the procedure.
>If you were to suspend all monitors who had ANY complaint filed against
>them from participating, sabotaging the monitor effort would be Just Too
Easy.

If a judge has demonstrated bias towards a defendant, they should recuse
themselves.  I noted at least one case of rather clear and forceful bias.

As to the more general case of ALL judges who themselves had complaints
pending, it is my understanding that the group deliberated about how to
handle the overall set of complaints.  That means that some portion of the
discussion considered all the complaints together.

It is a clear and serious conflict of interest for any accused judge to
participate in that discussion, since it is in their interest to bias the
group's decision towards minimal and simplistic treatment of the set of
charges.

For example they would be disinclined to permit complications such as
treating charges differently, such as according to whether they initiated
an attack or responded to one.  And they certainly would be biased towards
having warnings issued, rather than suspensions.

The fear of a deprivation of service attack is a dangerous one when used
for evaluating social processes.  Of course there is always some merit in
the fear, but more often it becomes an excuse for very sloppy process.
There are other ways to handle a mass attack on the judges, if and when it
occurs.


>>>  - so what's your real beef - do you just want to pick on me?
>>
>>Careful, Kristy.  You initiated this exchange.  I have merely been
>>responding.
>>In fact, you have mostly ignored the very specific points I have been
making.
>>That suggests that YOU are picking on ME.
>
>We are picking on your excessive use of language.

Harald, let's try to be serious and careful.  My comment, here, was much,
much more narrow than you have read.

My comment was about Kristy's entirely inappropriate handling of my
comments, ending with the entirely silly claim that I was making the
exchange personal.

She was not responding to my points and was herself making matters
personal.  THAT was the "picking on" I was referring to.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464