Re: [ga-abuse] M1 against Kent Crispin

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Hi Kristy!

> Kent has already received two warnings for this behavior since I have been
> a monitor.  We have already made an exception for Kent by sending the
> second warning.

Which one was the second? With my rather primitive
mailbox search, I only turned up the one Crispin
warning I mentioned in my mail, but I may
perfectly be wrong -- please point me to warning #2!

This is my list of list monitor warnings since we
took over from Harald:

 Patrick Corliss 4-May-01
 Derek Conant 15-Jun-01
 Kent Crispin 17-May-01
 Dave Crocker 8-May-01
 Jim Fleming 8-Jul-01
 Leah Gallegos 29-Jul-01
 Andy Gardner 15-Aug-01
 Joe Kelsey 18-Jul-01
 Roeland Meyer 27/28-Jul-01 (x3)
 Russ Smith 15-Aug-01

As to the number of warnings before suspending, I dug
out this mail from Harald with which I agree:
| Gang,
| I suggest that we be relatively liberal with warnings, and conservative
| with suspensions; do suspension only when the case is very clear, but warn
| when one feels that the intent of the rules is being violated.
|
| Some people will get several warnings before getting suspended; others will
| get only one; I think nobody (but Eric Dierker) should get none.
|
| I used to send some warnings in private, but think that at least the whole
| ga-abuse team needs to see them, now that we are many..

> Sending a third does not seem fair to the other members.

Even if it were the third, I think the gravity of
the action has to be proportionate to the gravity
of the violation: Personal insults with offensive swear
words, repeat off-topic postings and deliberate violations
of posting limits certainly justify a suspension.
But looking at the message
  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
I couldn't justify a suspension. If someone wrote about
"Kent's characteristically inaccurate and insulting
statement", he'd receive a warning from me, but would not
be suspended.

Hmmm, looks like we're stuck here, or? :)
How shall we proceed? Shall we ask the other GA-abuse
readers or specifically the Chair?

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> It is time to suspend Kent Crispin.

> :)

> At 12:04 PM 8/16/2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>>Hi Kristy,
>>
>>thanks for reminding me -- I didn't look it up!
>>I may have overlooked something, but I just found one
>>previous warning, about this message by Kent Crispin:
>> > However, the GA, at least, has effectively been
>> > captured by delusional people who think that they have
>> > much much more power than simply giving advice.
>>(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg01568.html)
>>
>>The message Joop rightly complains about refers to Milton
>>Mueller's message
>> > The self-organization took place back in Spring 1999.
>> > An IDNO organization has been around since then, the
>> > powers that be just didn't like the people behind it.
>> > Can we agree that when _another_ such proposal comes
>> > before the NC that it will be treated less politically?
>>(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00461.html)
>>
>>...and questions Milton's claims (writing to Roeland):
>> > It's interesting how you take Miltons characteristically inaccurate and
>> > insulting statement and run with it.
>> >
>> > The "powers that be" may or may not like the personalities involved, but
>> > the FACT is that the "cyberspace association" (aka as the "IDNO") simply
>> > does not credibly represent those that it claims to represent.  That is
>> > a completely sufficient grounds for rejecting it.  In fact, it would have
>> > been totally irresponsible for the Board to do otherwise.
>>(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html)
>>
>>There's no question that these personal sideswipes must come
>>to a stop. As Kent has been warned before (presuming this
>>has happened only once), I think we have the choice between a
>>strong warning and a suspension. When I look at the
>>personal attacks that have led to suspensions in the past,
>>I would choose to send a warning (worded stronger) -- a
>>suspension looks disproportionate to me here.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>Kent,
>>
>>The list monitors for the General Assembly (GA) of the DNSO
>>have issued this warning to you concerning complaints received
>>about the following post:
>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
>>
>>According to the rules for participation in the GA of the DNSO
>>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>>the messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>>   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>>   - Not using offensive language
>>
>>In the posting mentioned above you are referring to
>>Milton Mueller's statements as "characteristically inaccurate
>>and insulting". Sideswipes such as this are unacceptable
>>personal attacks.
>>
>>You have already been warned against such list rule
>>violations. As you know, the practiced policy of the GA is
>>to grant a two week suspension of your posting privileges
>>if this happens again.
>>
>>Regards,
>>[Kristy or Alexander for the list monitors]
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Best regards,
>>/// Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>> > At 02:50 PM 8/15/2001 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>M1: Alexander Svensson
>> >>Against: Kent Crispin, kent@songbird.com
>> >>Complainants:  Joop Teernstra, terastra@terabytz.co.nz
>> >>Complainant Comments: "These childish vendetta's (or are
>> >>they deliberate provocations?) have to be stopped, if the
>> >>GA is ever going to get anywhere."
>> >>Date:  14-Aug-01
>> >>Message:
>> >>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
>> >>
>> >>Grounds: Personal attack
>> >>Recommendation: Warning
>> >>
>> >>M1 Comment:
>> >>-------------------------------------------------------
>> >>Hello Kent,
>> >>
>> >>The list monitors for the General Assembly (GA) of the DNSO
>> >>have issued this warning to you concerning complaints received
>> >>about the following post:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00497.html
>> >>
>> >>According to the rules for participation in the GA of the DNSO
>> >>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>> >>the messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
>> >>   - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
>> >>   - Not using offensive language
>> >>
>> >>In the posting mentioned above you are referring to
>> >>Milton Mueller's statements as "characteristically inaccurate
>> >>and insulting". Please refrain from such personal sideswipes.
>> >>
>> >>Best regards,
>> >>[Kristy or Alexander for the list monitors]
>> >>
>> >>-------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>M2:  Kristy McKee
>> >>M2 Comment: Kent has already received two warnings for this: it is
>> >>absolutely time for him to be suspended.
>> >>Action: Suspension Two Weeks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:42:48 -0700
>> >> > From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
>> >> > To: ga@dnso.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request
>> >> > Mail-Followup-To: ga@dnso.org
>> >> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>> >> > Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:28:41AM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> >> >  > Denying a proposal because one doesn't like the people supporting it
>> >> is not
>> >> >  > politics of any honorable variety. It is slimey, subjective, and
>> >> personal.
>> >> >  > It also doesn't serve the best interests of the ICANN, in the
>> long run.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's interesting how you take Miltons characteristically inaccurate and
>> >> > insulting statement and run with it.