[ga-abuse] [Fwd: [ga] Excess Posting Limits]

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

I'll complain about a posting limit violation on this one.

This is my first such complaint. In general, I think the limit is silly, and if
we're going to have any such limit, then it should be enforced by software. But
if we have the limit, and it's enforced by monitors, then methinks they
should be consistent and boot Patrick for this post.

I wouldn't bitch if the chair or alt chair exceeded the limit to make an
important announcement, but here we have:

>It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that "official" posts from the
>Chair or Alternate Chair may escape this sanction.  This post is one such
>example as I am now over my own daily limit.

on a post that is just him explaining/babbling.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ga] Excess Posting Limits
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:47:13 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: "William S. Lovell, law" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>,"Earl Heather" <earl@pheather.com>
CC: "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
References: <3B509696.7516.1604C1F@localhost>

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:34 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:
> just wondering if I might proxy my 5 posts (sorry 4 remaining posts)
> to Mr. Lovell,who is much more coherent than myself today
> regarding concerns about process with this motion - I'm real curious
> what he will say next regarding this rush to vote ;>)

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:15:08 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

> There's no rule that I know of that allows this, but I believe it should
> work just like the law does in general: if there is no rule to cover
> doing some thing, then one creates the rule by doing the thing. I am
> therefore soaking up one of Earl's allotted posts, for which I thank
> him kindly.

Hi Earl & William

I am sorry that you haven't understood the environment under which the GA
is operating.  Let me say it again.  There are those within the GA who take
every opportunity to divert the debate by insisting on formal adherence to
the rules, procedure etc.  These state that there is a daily limit of five
posts per person.  That, of course, should be handled by the list software.

It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that "official" posts from the
Chair or Alternate Chair may escape this sanction.  This post is one such
example as I am now over my own daily limit.

Persons who wish to complain may do so through [ga-abuse] mailing list.
The list monitors must then adjudicate the complaints.  Failure to do do
then opens up another round of debate on the [ga] list.  Any attempt to
shift the debate to [ga-rules] creates further opportunities to debate the
"legitimacy" of the sublists.

And so it goes.  Nothing substantive gets achieved.

You may, of course, choose to ignore the current rules but that is simply
feeding those who would undermine the process.  There will also be further
debate that the list monitors should not be allowed to have *discretion*.

For what it is worth, I thought William's further explanation (exceeding the
posting limit) was well worthwhile.  However, it would totally negate the
excess posting limits should one person be allowed to make TEN postings
per day compared to everyone else's FIVE.

If ten, why not fifteen, twenty or more?

That's why we MUST afford legitimacy to at least the [ga-rules] sublist.
I wish you could see that and simply assist in making that a reality.

Best regards
Alternate Chair




--
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