[ga-abuse] Monitor disagreement about Kent Crispin case

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Thanks, Kristy! :)

> You are correct:  I mistook the #50 & #51 as being separate cases.  He has
> received one warning:
> [...]
> Please note the sentence:  If this happens again the practiced policy of
> the GA is to grant a two week suspension of your posting privileges.
>
>>It happened again.
>>
>>:)

We seem to be now in the situation where we don't
come to an agreement: I respect your argument that
there has been a list rule violation after a
warning and a suspension is warranted, but I don't
find that a suspension would be proportionate
if compared to previous suspensions and therefore
think that a second, stronger warning would be the
better solution. Since we are only two monitors,
I cc this to Danny and Patrick with a documentation
of the case and hope for their comments. (E.g.
Patrick could act as M3, so that the decision can
still be appealed to Danny.)

Best regards and thanks,
/// Alexander

=====================================================

M1: Alexander Svensson
M2: Kristy McKee
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
> 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.

Grounds: Personal attack
M1 Recommendation: Warning

M1 Comment:
There's no question that these personal sideswipes must come
to a stop. As Kent has been warned before, 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.
I would send the following warning:
-------------------------------------------------------
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]
-------------------------------------------------------

M2 Recommendation: Suspension Two Weeks
M2 Comment [paraphrase by Alexander!]: Kent has already
received a warning for this: it is absolutely time for him to
be suspended. Please note the sentence "If this happens
again the practiced policy of the GA is to grant a two week
suspension of your posting privileges." in the warning.
It happened again.